The Feminine Imperative

One of my commenters had never heard of the Feminine Imperative, and it is not listed the social matters compendium, so here is a description and definition.

The Feminine Imperative is that when a woman follows her pussy, it should have good results for her, and if it does not have good results for her, it is the fault of some dastardly man and not an indication that women are too childish and irresponsible to be allowed to follow their pussies.

Whenever illicit female sexual desires lead to illicit acts which have bad consequences, those consequences are deemed to be the fault of men, and it is the duty of men to make female sexual desires come out with good consequences for the woman, even if it means bad consequences for the man. Man up and marry those sluts!

Thus, for example, serial monogamy is deemed to be perfectly moral, while polygyny is totally unacceptable meaning that women are allowed to be permanently on the prowl to trade up from their current husband or boyfriend, while it is absolutely terrible for a man to sleep with multiple girlfriends, or to sleep with other women in addition to his wife.

When women do bad things, they are treated like children morally, let off the hook, protected from the consequences, yet they are allowed to make potentially disastrous choices without adult supervision, choices that men will pay for when those choices go wrong. Thus women receive substantially lesser penalties for crimes, and are not really expected to honor contracts – yet any business that discriminated against contracts signed by women would be in big trouble, even though it is also in trouble when it tries to enforce those contracts.

A pregnant woman can abort, or give the child away, but if she decides to keep it, she can demand child support from the father – while denying the child a father.

The system that the father and the mother get married at shotgun point, and the father is forced to support his wife and child, and the mother forced to honor and obey the husband makes moral sense. The system that a single mother is on her own would also make moral sense, if women could be treated as independent adults, equal to men, but when we tried that the result was far too many women giving birth to fatherless children in the rain in dark alleys. So now we have a system where pregnancy obligates men, but not women, where women make the decisions and men pay for the consequences. That is Feminine Imperative.

The underlying mechanism leading to the Feminine Imperative is that adult women are assumed to be adult, to be capable of making responsible decisions about sex and reproduction. And when it becomes painfully obvious that they are not, then men have to pick up the pieces, without however having the power and authority to restrain women from making bad decisions.

The Feminine imperative is a result of the fact that letting women take the costs of their decisions leads to intolerably bad outcomes. So men have to take the cost of women’s decisions.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 3rd, 2016 at 11:14 and is filed under culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

You will grow up and the only regret you will have is wasting time hating on the gender you actually love unless of course you weren’t so lucky and were raised by a poor mother. in that case, it’s time you dealt with your mother rather than projecting that hate onto people you dont know.

The only regret I have in life is engaging in this behaviour as a young lad. We didn’t have mass groups like this, we had poker nights. I’m glad I kept it at a bit of gossip amongst the boys, you lads have taken it too far and I worry about your generation. It’s not the women it’s you. You are attracting the low lives because that’s where you’ve allowed yourself to go.

I hope you climb your way out and away from the people who want to keep you stuck in anger. I did and the ladies who came my way were truly beautiful and kind like the ladies my sons have married.

Among great men are great women. Join us and be done with the evils of the internet. Your life here is long, let it be joyful.

That’s what “being alpha” amounts to. If you read any game bloggers, this is basically what they think is “alpha.” And if “betas” are to blame, then why don’t these almighty “alphas” just strut past the “betas” and cause them to crumble? Don’t “alphas” want to restore civilization and order? Answer= no; they love this shit and play their part in it.

It is, however, the betas who allow for their civilization to crumble in the first place. Instead of learning from the alphas, they decide to just sit in confusion and wait for a Trumpening that would likely be wasted on them.

Take Germany as an example. What if the men defended German women? The women would call them sexists, racists and say that they don’t need no man! Then they would turn right the fuck around and invite more sand niggers in. Betas need to learn to backhand these women and tell them to go and make the rest of the country a god damn sandwich. Don’t feed the beast.

“It is, however, the betas who allow for their civilization to crumble in the first place. Instead of learning from the alphas, they decide to just sit in confusion and wait for a Trumpening that would likely be wasted on them.”

I find it fascinating that some men rely on a pseudo-intellectual hierarchy meant to divide rather than unite. Would you characterize yourself as an alpha? In what ways?

The true “alphas” are those men who are responsibly married, have children, and teach them how to live a civilized life.

“Take Germany as an example. What if the men defended German women? The women would call them sexists, racists and say that they don’t need no man!”

How do you know women would make this distinction? How do you know German men have neglected to defend their womenfolk?

“Betas need to learn to backhand these women and tell them to go and make the rest of the country a god damn sandwich. Don’t feed the beast.”

Ok, Internet tough guy, a challenge for you. Go on the Internet, make a video proving that you are other than poser. That is, demonstrate for us how to order women around. If you are a true “alpha”, you would be more than willing to teach us betas how to operate. It’s weak sauce on your part to make such pronouncements without visual evidence.

Ok, Internet tough guy, a challenge for you. Go on the Internet, make a video proving that you are other tha

You know that if anyone reveals their true identity, social justice warriors will black list them. In this case, black list as a rapist, like Roosh.

I have done alright with women, but I cannot prove it, or rather do not dare prove it. I can, however, prove that Jian Ghomeshi did really great with women using methods that were not all that different from my own.

The true “alphas” are those men who are responsibly married, have children, and teach them how to live a civilized life.

Alphas are those who women think are alphas, which requires one to be able to put on some resemblance to a gorilla.

And because of this regrettable frailty of women, if one cannot put on some resemblance to a gorilla when necessary, one is unlikely to get married, stay married, have children, and teach them how to live a civilized life.

“Take Germany as an example. What if the men defended German women? The women would call them sexists, racists and say that they don’t need no man!”

How do you know women would make this distinction? How do you know German men have neglected to defend their womenfolk?

Mass sexual assault and frequent rape by Muslims. Also enslavement of huge numbers of vulnerable young girls – fatherless girls on welfare. Unowned immature white women are targeted for enslavement by brown Muslim men, though they perceive young girls with fathers as owned, and normally refrain from abducting them, figuring Dad is going to pay a visit.

To which authorities and feminists piously turn a blind eye.

Over time enslavement of white women will cure the feminism problem. Unfortunately it a cure we do not want, since the solution eradicates the white race and European civilization. The true cure is to steal them back, but without any of this emancipation nonsense, which requires a white male society that supports abduction and coercive control of females in the way that Muslim society supports it, and the government authorities tolerating such behavior by whites in the way that they tolerate such behavior by brown skinned Muslims.

“You know that if anyone reveals their true identity, social justice warriors will black list them. In this case, black list as a rapist, like Roosh.”

The truth will set you free. Patriots fighting for a cause take on all comers. That is how revolutions start and sustain themselves. Unless -A can back up his claims, I will assume he is making up shit and hoping it sticks.

“I have done alright with women, but I cannot prove it, or rather do not dare prove it. I can, however, prove that Jian Ghomeshi did really great with women using methods that were not all that different from my own.”

In the case of Jian, he consciously pursues a number of women whom he believes are “easy marks” against his better judgement, which clearly destroys the claims you have been making. You’re really not that bright. Yes, SOME of the women would appear to have psychological issues, but then again, it is readily apparent that Jian suffers from anxiety disorders and significantly lacks judgement. What makes the situation dicey are those women who agreed to have sexual contact with him probably regretted that decision and subsequently made up charges. Which doesn’t mean that if one woman failed to offer the truth, all women are therefore are saying things other than the truth. But given Jian’s propensity for sex with single women and not pursuing marriage/children, his own conduct has lead him to be put under scrutiny, and deservedly so.

“Alphas are those who women think are alphas, which requires one to be able to put on some resemblance to a gorilla.”

Yet, you go bananas for Roissy and his ilk. Hypocrite.

“And because of this regrettable frailty of women, if one cannot put on some resemblance to a gorilla when necessary, one is unlikely to get married, stay married, have children, and teach them how to live a civilized life.”

Corrected for accuracy —> Given the frailty of the human condition, some men and women act in a manner where they are incapable of establishing a one-on-one relationship, remain faithful, sire offspring, and teach their children how to properly behave in their own romantic affairs.

“Over time enslavement of white women will cure the feminism problem. Unfortunately it a cure we do not want, since the solution eradicates the white race and European civilization.”

Do whites have the liberty to make decisions for themselves when it comes to dating? marriage? having children or no children? associating with non-whites? OR, in every case, under every circumstance, all whites must act according to the values you prescribe?

Very simply questions to answer. Certainly, someone like yourself who does not want to understand the answers is going to understand the answers:)

In the case of Jian, he consciously pursues a number of women whom he believes are “easy marks” against his better judgement, which clearly destroys the claims you have been making.

They pursue him – and he gets the best. Well known actresses are not “easy marks”.

And I could tell you, but not prove, some stories of enormous discrepancies between myself, and the quality of the girl with me. Well, I cannot prove that about me, but I can prove that about the short fat elderly and balding Silvio Berlusconi. Of course he is rich and famous, but he still does pretty good compared to most rich and famous men.

That’s right, I don’t get a response. You can only pull your “incorrected for feminist compliance” bullshit on people who don’t know biology and what’s actually in the Bible.

That’s some nice glibertarianism. Marriage as defined by Gᴏᴅ Xɪʀꜱᴇʟꜰ means voluntarily contracting away some of your liberty, and Xᴇ chided the Woman at the Well for having sexual contact outside of Xɪʀ framework of marriage. But marriage is against the law in today’s society, a law which is selectively enforced against White men.

We all know this to be true. You pretend not to because you think you can get something out of it. You will get nothing.

Libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity if it is compatible with anti-Christian laws like no-fault divorce.

Feminism is compatible with Christianity to the extent that feminism is the mainline Christian theory of human souls and their behavior.

Feminism is compatible with libertarianism to the extent that you can ignore any actual differences between female and male behavior, and thus, the consequences of those differences, or to the extent that you can claim not to care about those consequences.

“They pursue him – and he gets the best. Well known actresses are not “easy marks”.”

The best? One actress was involved, Lucy DeCoutere, who is 45 and by PUA measures “over the hill” at age 33 when the alleged assault occurred. I’m sure by memory you are able to list her work and remark on her physical attributes. There were media types and waitresses also involved in the accusation. Do you truly characterize them as “the best”?

“And I could tell you, but not prove, some stories of enormous discrepancies between myself, and the quality of the girl with me.” Why not focus on your current wife?

“Of course he is rich and famous, but he still does pretty good compared to most rich and famous men.”

Few would dispute that wealthy men get poon. It’s no surprise. Now, is he married? Have children?

“That’s right, I don’t get a response. You can only pull your “incorrected for feminist compliance” bullshit on people who don’t know biology and what’s actually in the Bible.”

I wouldn’t call you someone knowledgeable about biology or the Bible.”

“But marriage is against the law in today’s society, a law which is selectively enforced against White men.”

Marriage…is against the law…in today’s society. You are joking, right?

“Libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity if it is compatible with anti-Christian laws like no-fault divorce.”

According to whom? How?

“Feminism is compatible with Christianity to the extent that feminism is the mainline Christian theory of human souls and their behavior.”

According to whom? How?

“Feminism is compatible with libertarianism to the extent that you can ignore any actual differences between female and male behavior, and thus, the consequences of those differences, or to the extent that you can claim not to care about those consequences.”

According to whom? How?

You, like Jim, make a bunch of bullshit statements that, when pressed, move on to more bullshit statements. It’s really quite remarkable.

The best? One actress was involved, Lucy DeCoutere, who is 45 and by PUA measures “over the hill” at age 33 when the alleged assault occurred.

She was still plenty hot at thirty three when Ghomeshi kicked her out of his bed, and most of the others crying rape for being rudely thrown out of his bed were hot and in their twenties.

“But marriage is against the law in today’s society, a law which is selectively enforced against White men.”

Marriage…is against the law…in today’s society. You are joking, right?

Marriage, as it has been understood until quite recently, is a criminal offense, and you have to be a bit of a criminal to have a genuine and successful marriage. You have to have the balls to defy state and society.

Good points, but at the end of the day, they are the worker bees you conserve. The people who are described as “alphas” by manosphere people are just guys getting drunk and trying to get a notch count (status signaling) by trying to bang other guys’ wives; I don’t say this to insult, this is just what it is. So are these guys gonna save the day, or are they contributing to the situation (and not to ‘eastern’ the decline so they can rebuild, be serious).

“She was still plenty hot at thirty three when Ghomeshi kicked her out of his bed, and most of the others crying rape for being rudely thrown out of his bed were hot and in their twenties.”

If you are going to make the claims the chicks were hot, then you best offer visual evidence, considering that the identities of two of the complainants in the case are protected. Do you have the requisite evidence, or is yet another one of your (in)famous bullshit statements?

For example, here is Lucy at 33. Not a ringing endorsement of what are the objective standards for white attractiveness. You have low standards.

“Marriage, as it has been understood until quite recently, is a criminal offense…”

No, it is not a criminal offense to be married. Talk about torturing language and tortured logic. But, that’s the white knight in you.

Denny…

“The people who are described as “alphas” by manosphere people are just guys getting drunk and trying to get a notch count (status signaling) by trying to bang other guys’ wives; I don’t say this to insult, this is just what it is. So are these guys gonna save the day, or are they contributing to the situation (and not to ‘eastern’ the decline so they can rebuild, be serious).”

“It is also the only workable and functional form of marriage. All successful marriages are quietly illegal.”

Assuming that American society is absolutely morally and legally required to follow the advice of Saint Paul, as directed by its citizens.

“Looks pretty hot.”

Of course you have to double down. You dare not admit you are sadly in error.

“Looks like she is hanging on to Ghomeshi and he is none too keen about being pestered by this sex crazed hot chick.’

Can’t argue that one, except her looks. She’s not hot.

So, where is your visual evidence regarding the hotness level of the other chicks involved, considering that the identities of two of the complainants in the case are protected. Do you have the requisite evidence, or is yet another one of your (in)famous bullshit statements?

Corvinus, you’ve been posing as a Christian, a feminist, and a libertarian, all in this thread. If you tell me those are incompatible, as you insinuated, I’ll remind you of this thread until the end of days.

Also explain how it’s compatible with the liberty to form contacts, or, that liberty isn’t libertarian.

Also explain how it’s compatible with equal opportunity and protection of women to suppress expressions of masculinity from White men, but permit those same expressions from mud males. You know what I’m talking about, but you’ll probably weasel out of it with ‘community standards’ of ‘sexual harassment’.

“Corvinus, you’ve been posing as a Christian, a feminist, and a libertarian, all in this thread. If you tell me those are incompatible, as you insinuated, I’ll remind you of this thread until the end of days.”

If you want to label me in these terms, that is on you.

So, here’s what your pointed little head is attempting to accomplish. You assume I had made these arguments** from those perspectives simultaneously, and are attempting to create the impression that I am skirting a responsibility to explain those positions. You erecting this straw man to catch me in some sort of lie is remarkably infantile. If I do respond to your inquiries, it legitimizes your strawman. If I fail to offer a response to allegedly what I said—similar to your continual refusals—then you will claim I argue in good faith.

Not playing by your rules.

**“Please explain how no-fault divorce isn’t a violation of God’s law, or, explain how it actually isn’t feminist. Also explain how it’s compatible with the liberty to form contacts, or, that liberty isn’t libertarian. Also explain how it’s compatible with equal opportunity and protection of women to suppress expressions of masculinity from White men, but permit those same expressions from mud males. You know what I’m talking about, but you’ll probably weasel out of it with ‘community standards’ of ‘sexual harassment’.”

The answer to the chaos wreaked by the current child-support system is easy, and will therefore never be enacted: deny child support to any woman who bears a child outside of wedlock. To even things up, deny parental rights to any man who knocks up a woman outside of wedlock. If he wants to pay child support, or she wants him to have access, that’s nobody’s business but theirs.

Outlawing abortion would be the icing on the cake, but even without this, you’d create a sizeable disincentive to female hypergamy. Want to screw your way to higher status? Sure, give it a try, but you’re on your own if the birth control fails (and it will). On the bright side, the guy won’t be pursuing you through the court system for access rights, but otherwise, you’d better have supportive parents, because that’s all the help you’re getting.

Poor response to distant incentives is a generic problem with humans, although the extent differs.

Many here believe white men respond well to distant incentives yet your central thesis is that they have adopted countless policies that guarantee their destruction. Perhaps they do respond better than others, but well?

Just as women enter the status race to exclude low quality men from their dating pool, wind up excluding all men, and die cultivating a menagerie of cats, high IQ white men enter the status race to monopolise money and women, end up enslaved on programmer plantations to pay for welfare plankton.

Your solution for women is to give control over them to high IQ white men.

Recall that the Japanese went from being the most manly men in the world to being the least manly men in the world. We create a society in which it is high status to be manly, and high IQ men will then be the most manly.

The Feminine Imperative as it pertains to divorce-rape and to female promiscuity can be swiftly defeated but it requires a radical shift in morality: legalize the rape of all single unmarried women everywhere. Once forcing single unmarried women to engage in sexual intercourse is allowed and never ever results in prosecution because it is perfectly legal, single unmarried women are utmostly incentivized to get married quick and then stay married. Now you may ask: how could one tell between married and unmarried women? Easy: presume that any woman who wanders around alone unsupervised is an unmarried slut. Then rape her. Soon, everyone is married.

Okay, but Whites like nuclear families and women who can stay single until around 18-22, then go on some dates, and start a nuclear family.

The general approval of some degree of female autonomy is the reason White “alphas” ( alphas are family men, but PUAing got more and more possible as feminism took off) managed to agitate for feminism in White countries.

“Okay, but Whites like nuclear families and women who can stay single until around 18-22, then go on some dates, and start a nuclear family.”
They only started to like that recently. I blame the decline of religion among White

Seriously, before the sexual revolution, women would be disowned if they fucked outside of marriage

” but it requires a radical shift in morality: legalize the rape of all single unmarried women everywhere”
So we should import rapefugees? They are very likely to agree with you, like any pre-modern man (rape used to be only a crime against the fathe or husband, not against the woman herself- something that Muslims still believe in).

If you don’t believe middle eastern women are not rapeworthy sluts, google the name of a syrian “actress”, Luna Hassan. An ass that nice and slutty should not go unraped.

I think of the Feminine Imperative as the sum total of behaviors that favor the well-being and desires of women over men. Tendencies toward it are hard-wired in both men and women. With men it’s the protective instinct they have towards women. With women it’s their tendency to network with unrelated females to extract resources from men.

In previous cultures the FI was kept in check by a combination of the scarcity of surplus wealth, social/religious customs to deal with female misbehavior, and the presence of the male counterpart of the female herd – the patriarchial extended family. But in modern Western societies these factors are either severely weakened or absent entirely.

I agree with 98~99% of all that. In fact, if anything, I would say your article understates the seriousness of all this for men. Our disagreement, I think stems from peripheral issues and what to do about it.

Peripheral issues: is what you define as ‘the female imperative’ a function of female human nature – or one of culture? I argue that it is a byproduct of feminism gone wrong – with the generous assistance of socialism and liberalism. So much so that I consider all three to be diseased states of mind. My grandmother was thrown out on the street at the age of 12 during the dirty 30’s. She worked all her life and raised her 5 brothers and sisters. Here in Alberta, this land was on the frontier in the 30’s. If you were an Alberta pioneer, and got off the train to go homesteading – you had a year to clear your land, build a house, a barn and get a crop in the ground. If your wife was not a strong, capable woman – you starved. These women are my ancestors. I know what you’re saying Jim – hell, I look around and I see it every day. My own daughter: she is smart, at least as capable as her mother and great grandparents – but she has chosen to cop out and adopt the life of the militant gay social justice warrior. Her friends stood up to cheer her decision. Her grandparents (my in laws) congratulated her and told her she was as wonderful and beautiful as anyone else. The teachers at school approved. When I told her she did all that because she was lazy and childish – and that her decisions would lead to poverty, unhappiness and ostracism – it was seen as apostasy. I was accused of abusing and traumatising my daughter and my in laws told me to recant or leave the family. I gave them the finger and left – and by the grace of God my wife came with me. (It was awesome, actually. When they smugly encouraged my daughter to sin against her father and common sense – they had no idea that I could induce their own daughter to do the same! HAR HAR HAR! Ya get what ya give, fuckers!) Trust me boys – I have been fucked over by the modern woman and her cheerleaders too…at least I was able to make sure they did not enjoy the experience and that they will never be able to do it again.

So – yeah, I know all about the faggotification and pussification of our society and how insidious the social justice/political correctness movement is. The question becomes, what to do about it.

Some men say we should all go PUA like Jian Ghomeshi and treat women like expendable commodities. Pump ’em and dump ’em with as little expense and commitment as possible! That’ll learn ’em! Ride ’em like a rented mule and discard ’em! Such men are petulant boys with turd for brains and less for balls. What is bad for one gender is always ultimately bad for both, and the PUA mentality is just a case of stupidity doubled down on feminism. It is my scholarly conviction that the new age liberal slut/shrew is easily countered by old world social conservatism.

With the anti-male climate of society you are simply nuts to hop in the sack and bang any skank that bends over. There is a price for sex, always has been, always will be. Sex is never free. If we accept that assumption as reality – and I do – then the next steps are obvious. Long courtships for serious prospects. Short abrupt ones for low balls and tirebiters – Ghomeshi can have those and be welcome to them. Should a long term prospect be viable then marriage is certainly an inviting proposition. Cover your ass first – establish bulletproof prenup caveats and conditions on the marriage contract. The goal isn’t to screw as many as you can and still avoid The Clap – it is to find your soul mate and be happy. Skanks and shrews (or feminists and liberals) are what they are because they are idiots. The object is not to teach them a lesson (idiots by definition don’t learn) – the object is to AVOID them.

I agree that your female imperative exists – but it is not universal. Some pasty faced cellar dweller took me into the boards with charges of me being a NAWALT. (Yeah, I had to look that one up too…). And yet, good women are out there, I have met them and they are real…just as creeps like my daughter are.

I argue that it is a byproduct of feminism gone wrong – with the generous assistance of socialism and liberalism

No the Feminine Imperative is not.

It is a result of treating women like independent adults, the result of emancipation. Then they make horribly bad decisions, and we suddenly realize that they are really children and it is unreasonable and cruel to let them suffer the consequences of their own decisions, or let them suffer for wicked things they did as we would let a man suffer for wicked things he did.

I agree with a lot of what you talk about, but the reason that white men don’t control their own white daughters is because they’re often anti-white themselves and do not especially care if whites are around in one-hundred years. They care about their daughters creating chaos in their family, since it ultimately causes more work, but they can never go right for this sort of control over their own daughter: it is basically a hedonistic paradox, which means that a greater good, in this case white survival is what is needed for really understanding the importance of clamping down on one’s own daughter’s activity- so that she does not take part in the very popular sex strike against White Genocide.

Remember that women really want love and protection, a kind of ownership that will not leave her feeling like she is bored, but instead that she is busy. Self-hating individuals, or white anti-whites, are the kind of person that she tries hardest to avoid because they don’t have enough wherewithal to create a strong enough frame that she cannot escape from.

It’s more that just poor parenting. To raise a daughter correctly in America today is a unrealistic expectation for average people. To say it is extremely difficult is an understatement. The amount of time and energy to instruct them, control them, monitor them, combat the bad ideas they get from society at large, protect them, love them, teach them, is beyond enormous. Whoever first said “It takes a village” was right. One man alone against the whole of society is tough. Most of the time the Dad fails, or he doesn’t even try, because he sees the odds are against him.

now if only we could tell this induhvidualist cuckservative about all the trillions of dollars the government pours into telling women to be sluts and racemix, including the segment of the trillion dollars of outstanding student loans that were spent on the sluts and future office ladies, and all the trillions of dollars the government commands that private industry pour into pretending that women can be economically self-sufficient, perhaps he would recognize that there are incentives that are outside of a father’s control and things that a father can’t tell his child without fearing exposure and firing for thinking bad thoughts.

Or maybe he’d just speak in platitudes, like men should man up, or like that social consequences aren’t the government’s fault ignoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Talking to Corvinus is like talking to AJP, but Corvinus’ slogans are so commonplace to be called platitudes.

“It’s more that just poor parenting. To raise a daughter correctly in America today is a unrealistic expectation for average people…”
————————————————————————

Well done, Robert. You are 100% correct.

I was threatened with a child abuse lawsuit three times during our lives together. In all three cases, women made the charges. In all three cases I told the women involved to FOAD or get a lawyer. I was not a tyrant or a monster. My daughter had to keep her nose clean, stay away from drugs and get good marks. That’s it. While she lived under my roof she was a model young woman. Under my tutoring she got honours in high school and finished up half a year ahead of schedule.

When she left home to go to university – she became a degenerate homosexual hipster. She took a fake ‘fine arts’ degree and you can guess how that turned out. I opposed the fine arts program decision – but she was a legal adult by that time. I opposed her gay agenda when she tried to force it on us and the rest of the liberal family shunned us. I rejected them right back and told my wife she could come with me, or go with her liberal family – but she couldn’t do both. She sided with me.
Now Jim could argue that female imperitave stuff with my daughter, my mother in law and my own mother – but not with my wife. She is smarter than most of you boys here and incredibly capable. I know other women that are too.
The fact is that if you try and raise a daughter with classical values and instill classical attributes – you will be lucky if you don’t end up in jail.
Letting women off on their biology is a cop out. They act like children because we encourage it and we don’t punish it. For now I reject the idea of the female imperative – there are just too many exceptions to Jim’s rule.
That being said…there is too much supporting evidence to throw the theory out too. I still prefer my theory to his…but given the way things are going I think one of us is going to be proved right or wrong shortly.

The reason that white women and daughters do what they’re when it comes to getting a job and doing well in academics (majority of college students are female) is because they want and follow good advice, the exception being their own participation in the sex strike against White Genocide. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the big drop in white feritility and marriage among whites in the years since “integration” began and laws preventing mass coloured immigration (1950s and 1960s) were ended.

Tell a white woman how to make money and she’ll happily listen and give it a try. Tell one how to have a family and make white babies and she’ll rebel. It’s because she’s participating in the sex strike against White Genocide, and she won’t stop until White Genocide is stopped.

» the exception being their own participation in the sex strike against White Genocide

retarded lie

» If you don’t believe me, take a look at the big drop in white feritility and marriage among whites in the years since “integration” began and laws preventing mass coloured immigration (1950s and 1960s) were ended.

this is explained by (1) no fault divorce, which the national association of women lawyers started pushing in 1947 and passid in california 1970 tyvm Ronald Reagan Governor Ronald Reagan (2) civil rights act of 1964 ban on sexism (3) thanks to the Civil Rights, the Equal Rights Amendment passed both houses of Congress in 1972 (4) “co-ed” (5) in the final analysis, it was cuckstains white knighting for women that weren’t behaving as good Christian women.

No, it’s to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children by finding a woman to help you produce and raise those children. You do need someone you can get along with for the 20-30 years until your children are ready to have children of their own, because your task is not compete until then.

It is instructive that White women become markedly less attractive in their 30s. Asian women do not because they need to keep their husband focused on them and their children since he can try to get another wife. Nigger sows don’t get ugly until menopause because they need to attract niggers for their entire reproducing life, though they have the independence to raise the children without the niggers.

A 30 year old White woman either has a husband who is permanently bound to her, or she’s an old maid, the kind you throw out from your bag of popcorn.

> “It is instructive that White women become markedly
> less attractive in their 30s. Asian women do not
> because they need to keep their husband focused
> on them and their children since he can try to get
> another wife…

“No, it’s to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children by finding a woman to help you produce and raise those children. You do need someone you can get along with for the 20-30 years until your children are ready to have children of their own, because your task is not compete until then.”

I wouldn’t believe it if my friends said that people like yourself existed in the world until I read it directly. First, the existence of white people depends upon how and why they exist for themselves, not to suit your narrative. Second, I imagine that you have at least five white offspring. If not, you have disrespected your people.

How and why is obvious, Whites exist because Whites exist. Since you asked that meaningless question, it probably implies that you, and by extension the rest of the christcucks, have stopped pretending not to know what and who Whites are. Which is progress. Hail Trump.

Are you implying that white nationalists don’t whiteknight the fuck out of white women, no matter how skanky and entitled they are? These guys root for FEMEN just because they are white and hate Islam (for progressive reasons, no less).

The amount of white-knighting that goes on among NatSocs is breathtaking. Introduce a woman with race realist ideas and the drooling and foot-worshiping begins. I’m not impressed. Women really shouldn’t have political opinions as far as I’m concerned. That isn’t what they are designed for.

Those who push alien religions, like yourself, necessarily are threatened by white Americans who advocate for themselves as who they are. What you say may or may not be true, but as you bring it up in this context, it’s basically Anti-Whitism.

L.O.L., son-of-a-gun lost a good comment, that ended up disappearing under this blogpost.

I am advocating that people understand Feminism within an Ethno-Nationalist context.

Whether or not Queen Caroline was able to flaunt her sexual immorality under her husband’s nose might not have anything to do with the fact that being attached to a huge empire can be a very spiritually draining thing. Therefore, I delegitimise the claim that Feminism caused White Genocide.

White women are having a sex strike as a protest against the genocide of their people. People cannot be separated from their own appearance, definitely including skin colour. When white women see that many anti-whites are white themselves, they push away from white men because they don’t want to be around and therefore risk having White Genocide pushed on them.

#WWSSAWhiteGenocide

Yes, this is reminiscent of the prophets who would say that daughters would not be given in marriage because people would not do what was needed for their own survival as a people. In fact, it may be an updated version.

Consider that the majority white country of the U.S. paid many thousands of dollars and given the accolade of employment at a prestigous school to somebody who said this:

While you and I know that women have destructive tendencies, the betas will never buy it and betas are still a big part, even a mainstay of society. This is a useful way to explain to them in concepts that they can understand.

Beta males are not, definitely not capable of punishing a woman in cold blood. That is a huge difference. They want to believe that women are the fairer sex, in soul as well as in looks. Betas will pursue this belief to the destruction of everyone. And, so their worldview must be put to use. They’re betas, they were looking for the way to get “pussy” anyhow, not power.

Dude, it ain’t the “betas.” Like I said, they are on the sideline wondering what is going on. The “alphas” are the ones rewarding wit attention this destructive behavior for “notch counts,” in other words, status signaling (look at me, I’m “da man”). It is they who have super high time preference and status obsession; much like the women actually.

Do you really think any “alphas” actually want to punish this behavior when they have so many ultra-short term gain to lose from it? Time to get serious guys.

Yes, and these men are “alphas” according to the manosphere. What are these almighty men doing to restore proper Western Civilization though? Why nothing of course, but why pick on “betas” who are hapless victims and totally clueless. Doing anything and everything to get pussy is more status-mongering to keep up with MTV culture than it is actual desire. If any of this is wrong I am ready to hear it.

A.J.P.

Of course you are correct, I was generalizing about both “betas” and “alphas.” If you want to direct them towards knowledge of the genocide, that is great. But the “alphas” all know about it, and, they are so cool and sexy and rich and powerful, etc., so why don’t they use their massive game to stop the genocide? I’m just being real, it is what it is, I just don’t like people blaming clueless innocents for stuff, that’s all.

I notice all types of differences and have no problems sir. I also notice the disingenuousness of pretending “betas” are responsible for what Jim described in this post.

— the betas will never buy it and betas are still a big part, even a mainstay of society. This is a useful way to explain to them in concepts that they can understand.

That’s cool. When you hijack CNN, you can tell the normies about the Lysistrata conspiracy of White women, which they will accept since the normies are used to believing in a conspiracy by all White men for all time to oppress their daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers.

Lying is the prerogative of the official media. On a small blog, the only thing to do is tell the truth.

–So that the beauty of the White woman doesn’t not perish from this Earth

— We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children

To AJP, “beauty of the White woman” means we can’t say “White women both recite whatever line they think can get them alpha cock and see the invaders as having balls because they’re permitted to act like they have balls while Whites aren’t except for some White leftists sometimes”. Instead, let’s go with “White women are going Lysistrata until White men start acting like they have balls and kick out the invaders”.

This is the problem with prooftexting with slogans instead of thinking.

“White women are having a sex strike as a protest against the genocide of their people. People cannot be separated from their own appearance, definitely including skin colour. When white women see that many anti-whites are white themselves, they push away from white men because they don’t want to be around and therefore risk having White Genocide pushed on them.”

Really, a sex strike? Who called this out? How many “white anti-white women” are we talking about? What are their demands? More importantly, what are their traits? How does one define “anti-white”?

> White women are having a sex strike as a protest against the genocide of their people.

White women do not have an inherent racial loyalty, any more than other women. So your explanation for their behavior makes no sense. Loyalty to one’s ethnic group/tribe/nation state is a male attribute.

Look you knucklehead it was a stupid insult when you used it because it has a meaning – the opposite of how you were using it. That doesn’t mean it’s meaningless – far from it.

You’re acting like a progressive in trying to obliterate the words that have meanings that express forbidden concepts. You have a tendency to do this all the time when you claim to fail to understand the very clearly laid out points that peppermint makes and you make a stupid post that shows that you can’t refute any of them and instead write something about screaming.

You aren’t going to drive the conversation away from ideas that are anathema to you by wiping out language.

Anti-Feminists are pretty good at being White Knights, I’m noticing. The reason for this is because even the Commies were anti-Feminists compared to Atlantic countries, 2016. White Knighting comes in when the understanding is, shall we say, less than holistic.

I didn’t even get to see it. But I’ll gladly take your word for it that it’s a stupid insult. It’s consistent with your vacuous theory of a white female sex strike as a protest against white males causing white genocide.

>White women do not have an inherent racial loyalty, any more than other women. So your explanation for their behavior makes no sense. Loyalty to one’s ethnic group/tribe/nation state is a male attribute.

I saw a shocking sight not too long ago. There’s this mostly Muslim non-white ethnic group from on of my parent’s country of origin (which is also non-white), and they’ve recently been protesting in various Western capitals about how badly their people back home are being treated. I have nothing but contempt for these people, and absolutely no sympathy for their cause, but when I found myself in the vicinity of one of the protests recently, I decided to sit on a bench across the street from where they were protesting to watch them. What really struck me about the whole thing was how many WHITE WOMEN were there, protesting with them. One of the white women, who was by the way scantily dressed and extremely attractive, was there with her boyfriend, who is from that ethnic group on whose behalf the protest was being held. I’m sure that she, not to mention the rest of the white women there, didn’t know the first thing about the ethnicity that i’m talking about, or the country against whom they were protesting. They were just there, presumably, because they wanted attention. Most likely, the also likely were there to look for cock, although they’d obviously never say so.

It was that day when I realized that, with women like that, it is all over for whites…

White women are having plenty of sex, and they don’t appear to be discriminating on the basis of race — they have sex with white men, black men, yellow men, red men, and brown men (in fact, they seem to especially like being raped by brown men) — actually, they’d even have sex with purple men if there were any.

Also, white women, like women of other races, have developed, over the past few decades, a taste for being sodomized. Just look at how appallingly high is the percentage of women who report having engaged in that particular sex act more than once. I would suggest that women these days are open to engaging in every possible kind of sex act, and white women cannot be considered exempt here.

The problem is that white women aren’t having procreative sex, not that they are on a sex strike. They aren’t having procreative sex in the supposedly anti-white West, but they aren’t having procreative sex in the ethnocentric countries of Eastern Europe either. It isn’t true white women are on a sex strike.

While it is true that most, perhaps all, women on the internet are not actually women a not-insignificant number representing themselves as such have told me as such, which makes me wonder what
there really is to it. I do know women outside the internet, like most people, but they haven’t spoken about the white women sex
strike against White Genocide, probably because they can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, in other words couldn’t do both the sex strike and serve as the spokesman for what they’re doing.

If Eastern European women are also taking part, it’s because they saw White Genocide on the horizon and at this point it’s right on them, anti-whites have seen to it.

“Irving”,

What you have written me does have a lot of truth especially that white women do have sex outside of their own race, which I’ve explained is because the last person a white woman would want to have sex with is a self-hating white anti-white, and she’s stereotyped white men as the kind that are pushing the genocide of her race,
the white race.

White women, like all women, have sex with people that can get them things like social prestige, expensive vacations, since she’s in competition with other women and wants to stand out. However, in the years before the program of White Genocide began in earnest, she was content to eventually settle down with a nice provider type…

Not anymore! It’s 2016, and the last thing she wants to end up is in a place where she is considered by social norms expected to have sex with a white man, in marriage. That’s what I didn’t see you mentioning in your reply to me. White women can’t stand taking a chance being attached to somebody who will push the genocide of her race and that is where the white women sex strike against White Genocide really has teeth… Sometimes the “herd” of white women will enforce the sex strike with social pressure against a married white women and cause her to choose between divorce or being friendless. In those situations, many white women comply with the sex strike against White Genocide, and end up going with the divorce.

Can anyone really blame them, though? Self-hating white anti-whites are disgusting and sick, and watching somebody push White Genocide is hands-down one of the worst things possible! So,
they stay away from attaching themselves to groups that have a higher percentage of that sort of anti-white behaviour and hold back on marriage and the sex that would come with it.

The average age of marriage is going up because less marriage is happening. More men are going homosexual because there is a white women sex strike against White Genocide.

It’s time to stop White Genocide so that white women will stop their sex strike against it, and stop stereotyping white men as being anti-white, genocidal and treacherous maniacs, pushing the genocide of the White Race.

I will leave you with one more quote:
“Every year, from this stage and at this time, you have heard me say that, if in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university,” – Western Washington University President Bruce Shepherd

“It’s 2016, and the last thing she wants to end up is in a place where she is considered by social norms expected to have sex with a white man, in marriage.”

Corrected for accuracy–The last thing for a number of women regardless of race is wanting to get married to any man.

It has nothing to do with white genocide. White men and women, hell, all people, have the liberty to stay single or marry. What you are advocating is compelling whites to forgo their freedom to suit your agenda. That is fascism.

Women should not have the liberty to engage in serial monogamy, whether formalized by serial marriage or not. They should choose once and forever, and be forced to stick with that choice.

Hypergamy should get the same treatment as polygyny. We should not completely suppress it, but we should apply sufficient social pressure and government coercion to make it furtive and uncommon.

If a woman sleeps with a man, should be under substantial social and governmental coercive pressure to marry him, and he her. If she gets pregnant and stays pregnant, then they get married or else. Sleeping with men who could not marry her (broke, criminal, already married) should have unpleasant legal and social consequences. It should be a crime of sexual immorality, and penalties sometimes get enforced. Frivolous divorce should not be permitted, and if a married woman cruises for adulterous sex, it should have absolutely disastrous consequences for her socially and legally.

If a woman gets pregnant with someone who cannot be forced to marry her (perhaps already married, perhaps already has eighteen different women pregnant) then her head of household, normally her father, has an enforceable obligation to take care of the child – but also enforceable authority over the woman, including authority to marry her off against her will in the event of immoral conduct.

If a woman has no male head of household supervising her, no father supervising her, no one obligated to support her fatherless children, and engages in immoral conduct that exposes her to risk of fatherless children (for example sleeping with a petty thug who already has eighteen different women pregnant) then the state should be able marry her off against her will to whosoever it judges suitable, unless she finds a suitable husband in a hurry.

Welfare support for fatherless children should be a last resort, the normal first resort being to stick her to some male, ideally the father of at least one of her demonspawn, and force her to honor him, obey him, to always be sexually available to him, and never sexually available to anyone else.

A rational adult woman will respond to these incentives by engaging in romantic consensual marriage and sticking to it. Irrational and irresponsible misbehaving women should be coerced into submission to men able and willing to take care of them and enforce good conduct upon them. It is time for Uncle Sam to divest himself of his numerous wives.

“Women should not have the liberty to engage in serial monogamy, whether formalized by serial marriage or not. They should choose once and forever, and be forced to stick with that choice.”

Unfortunately, some “men” like Roissy corrupt feeble minds and prey on women’s amygdala, saturating their senses with sweet nothings. Men demand sex, but they crave women not caving in. Rather than being rational, men focus on being depraved. Thus, in the end, it’s MEN AND WOMEN who ought to remain monogamous.

“Hypergamy should get the same treatment as polygyny. We should not completely suppress it, but we should apply sufficient social pressure and government coercion to make it furtive and uncommon.”

In this context, social pressure = shaming, and government coercion = fascism.

“If a woman sleeps with a man, should be under substantial social and governmental coercive pressure to marry him, and he her. If she gets pregnant and stays pregnant, then they get married or else.”

Tell that to the manosphere crowd, who advocates pumping and dumping.

“Sleeping with men who could not marry her (broke, criminal, already married) should have unpleasant legal and social consequences.”

Then Roissy ought to he hung from the nearest tree.

“Frivolous divorce should not be permitted, and if a married woman cruises for adulterous sex, it should have absolutely disastrous consequences for her socially and legally.”

Corrected for accuracy–If a married man or woman cruises for adulterous sex, there should be consequences for their actions within their social circle.

“If a woman gets pregnant with someone who cannot be forced to marry her (perhaps already married, perhaps already has eighteen different women pregnant) then her head of household, normally her father, has an enforceable obligation to take care of the child – but also enforceable authority over the woman, including authority to marry her off against her will in the event of immoral conduct.”

Doesn’t hold up in a court of law today. How is that ivory tower of yours?

“If a woman has no male head of household supervising her, no father supervising her, no one obligated to support her fatherless children, and engages in immoral conduct that exposes her to risk of fatherless children (for example sleeping with a petty thug who already has eighteen different women pregnant) then the state should be able marry her off against her will to whosoever it judges suitable, unless she finds a suitable husband in a hurry.”

Doesn’t hold up in a court of law today. How is that ivory tower of yours?

“Welfare support for fatherless children should be a last resort, the normal first resort being to stick her to some male, ideally the father of at least one of her demonspawn, and force her to honor him, obey him, to always be sexually available to him, and never sexually available to anyone else.”

There is that word again, force. Classic fascism.

” Irrational and irresponsible misbehaving women should be coerced into submission to men able and willing to take care of them and enforce good conduct upon them. It is time for Uncle Sam to divest himself of his numerous wives.”

Corrected for accuracy–Men and women will act irrational and irresponsible when single or married when they have sex outside of marriage which may result in offspring. However, it is not up to the state to enforce punishment for their private consensual sexual acts.

Unfortunately, some “men” like Roissy corrupt feeble minds and prey on women’s amygdala, saturating their senses with sweet nothings.

Serial monogamy is not the fault of men like Roissy. He is just playing the cards he has been dealt. Serial monogamy is characteristic female misbehavior that women engage in at the expense of men. When men get their way at the expense of women, you get polygyny, not serial monogamy.

“Hypergamy should get the same treatment as polygyny. We should not completely suppress it, but we should apply sufficient social pressure and government coercion to make it furtive and uncommon.”

In this context, social pressure = shaming, and government coercion = fascism.

And today’s suppression of polygyny is not fascism?

Is control of sexual conduct perhaps only fascism when it benefits men, but whatever control of men benefits women is the opposite of fascism?

“Serial monogamy is not the fault of men like Roissy. He is just playing the cards he has been dealt.”

White knighting for him only jeopardies your soul. Roissy has the free will to stop fucking single women and not remain a biological dead end.

“Serial monogamy is characteristic female misbehavior that women engage in at the expense of men.”

Corrected for accuracy—Serial monogamy is a human trait. It is common among men and women in Western society.

“When men get their way at the expense of women, you get polygyny, not serial monogamy.”

No, you get whoring.

“And today’s suppression of polygyny is not fascism?”

You are not suppressed from practicing it. Just remember there are consequences as generated by the current dominant society. Moreover, the predominant Christian position is that polygyny is morally wrong. God’s ideal comes from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matthew 19:3–6. He cited Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, saying “the two will become one flesh”, not more than two. Then there is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy—Jesus will not have multiple brides. The 10th Commandment “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife [singular] … ” (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Timothy 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Paul goes on to explain marital responsibilities in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

“Is control of sexual conduct perhaps only fascism when it benefits men, but whatever control of men benefits women is the opposite of fascism?”

It is fascism when you are demanding that certain men have exclusive control of sexual behavior in a society at the expense of the liberty of other men.

“**Men sleeping with women in addition to their wives does not have the disastrous consequences that women sleeping with other men in place of their husbands has**.”

Except Roissy and his ilk are not married men. They are single “alpha” men who seek to ruin marriage by parlaying their knowledge of game into a lucrative business for themselves at the expense of marriage and procreation. You defending their conduct will burn your soul come Judgement day.

Now, if you are going to make your claim**, you are going to have to operationally define “disastrous consequences”, then use that definition to make comparisons by citing evidence. Merely making this statement without the requisite proof is an opinion. That’s how discourse works, Jim.

Moreover, you should ask your wife about your alleged sexual dalliances outside of marriage and have her directly report about her thoughts on the matter. If you do have sex outside of marriage, then you best be siring additional offspring. The white race is depending on it, Jim.

“Serial monogamy is not the fault of men like Roissy. He is just playing the cards he has been dealt.”

White knighting for him only jeopardies your soul

You attempt to destroy language to make forbidden thoughts unthinkable. “White knighting” is only meaningful in the context of a man defending a woman who is not his property, and not likely to become his property.

Serial monogamy is characteristic sinful female behavior, which behavior harms themselves and greatly harms their children. It is uncharacteristic of males.

In our society, male misconduct is by far the least of our problems. If beta males were going without pussy because rich men were keeping all the pussy locked up in harems, then you could blame male misbehavior.

I’m not destroying language, I am using it properly. You are coming to the defense of one of your allies. Anti-SJW’s have used it in this context, whether it be man coming to the defense of a fellow man or woman.

“Serial monogamy is characteristic sinful female behavior, which behavior harms themselves and greatly harms their children. It is uncharacteristic of males.”

Corrected for accuracy–Serial monogamy is a trait of human beings. Roissy is a clear example of a man who games a woman, sexes them up, and leaves them for another woman for the exclusive pursuit of carnal pleasure rather than procreating.

You can’t keep up with your own hypocrisies. Again, have your old lady come on to this blog and verbalize and visualize how she loves the fact that you cheat on her with women outside of marriage. A blog entry won’t do. If you truly control your woman, then command her to tell the world that she is your property through a YouTube video. Then you will have all of our attention.

“In our society, male misconduct is by far the least of our problems.”

Corrected for accuracy–Male and female misconduct are the root of several social problems.

“If beta males were going without pussy because rich men were keeping all the pussy locked up in harems, then you could blame male misbehavior.”

Beta males don’t get pussy often, allegedly, nor do they get quality poon. Alphas like Roissy label men as substandard, shaming them as being inferior for their sexual ignorance and lacking male charms to seduce ladies. It’s a club designed only for supposedly superior men, except they pump and dump and refuse to take responsibility for children. Their population paste remains in the reservoir tip of their condom, if they even wear one.

pdimov…

“The cheap trick of arbitrarily calling something “fascism” thereby winning the argument is losing its power as we speak.”

Actually, I’m properly labeling the situation. Demanding that all whites procreate with only whites, and demanding that whites look out for only white interests, those calls to action are fascist.

Now, if one does take your offense to heart, then logic dictates to call into question those who “arbitrarily” call someone a beta, or a cuckservative. or an anti-white.

One day you’ll say “patriarchy is fascism!!!~1” and people will reply “is it now? well fascism can’t be that bad then, can it be?”

“Serial monogamy is characteristic sinful female behavior, which behavior harms themselves and greatly harms their children. It is uncharacteristic of males.”

Corrected for accuracy–Serial monogamy is a trait of human beings

You are nuts. Male and female sexual misbehavior is fundamentally different. Female misbehavior is driven by hypergamy, male misbehavior by polygyny. So men sleep with additional women, women sleep with replacement men.

Rich and famous men keeping harems is not a significant problem in our society. Serial monogamy is a huge problem. So we have a problem with female sexual misbehavior, not a problem with male sexual misbehavior.

White male misbehaviour is indeed to blame because White Genocide (flooding and “assimilating” the third-world by the hundreds of millions into EVERY and ONLY white countries) is a programme instituted at the political level and women don’t have what it takes to make political change. Yet, they do have and use what power they are capable of handling and that is why white women are on sex strike against White Genocide.

Would you want to be with somebody who probably wants your race done away with (stereotyping white men, who are often self-hating, white anti-white, traitors)? Neither would I, which is the reason I, for the time being, do support the sex strike.

Stop White Genocide, and take away the reason for the white woman sex strike against White Genocide. #WWSSAWhiteGenocide

» then command her to tell the world that she is your property through a YouTube video

Niggers order young White women to do this and more. If I did it, she wouldn’t necessarily be shamed by her peers, because young women no longer believe in feminism, but another guy who wants her would let my employer know I’m a mysoynyst wymyn hytyr.

And that’s the entire problem White men face.

Your taunts are disgusting, but they just show that you don’t even believe your own bullshit, which is why young White women don’t believe it.

Your side is losing, and after it does, everyone will remember your comments here.

Cheating in your marriage is not observably different. Finding ways to secretly bed the opposite sex through manipulation when married is not observably different. Jumping from uncommitted relationship to uncommitted relationship is not observably different.

“Female misbehavior is driven by hypergamy, male misbehavior by polygyny.”

Fundamentally different, in that when a man has sex with another woman, he does not have sex with his wife less, rather he has sex with his wife more, whereas when a woman cheats with another man she stops having sex with her husband, leading to family breakup.

“If I did it, she wouldn’t necessarily be shamed by her peers, because young women no longer believe in feminism, but another guy who wants her would let my employer know I’m a mysoynyst wymyn hytyr.””

You don’t have the guts to even make those comments in front of your employer in any event, sad sack.

“Your side is losing, and after it does, everyone will remember your comments here.”

What side do you presume I’m taking? Furthermore, why would anyone here truly care about my comments on a measly blog?

A.J.P.

“White male misbehaviour is indeed to blame because White Genocide (flooding and “assimilating” the third-world by the hundreds of millions into EVERY and ONLY white countries)…”

Do whites have the liberty to make their own individual decisions when it comes to supporting immigrants from entering the country?

Do whites have the liberty to unconditionally choose to marry and sire offspring with non-whites?

Do whites have the liberty to intermix and intermingle with non-whites?

These are simple questions that demand your answers.

“Yet, they do have and use what power they are capable of handling and that is why white women are on sex strike against White Genocide.”

Again, please offer specific evidence as to who is committing this sex strike. When did it begin? What are their demands? How are men responding to this overall lack of poon? What alternative blog sites are discussing this important issue? Sources must be cited.

Why are YOU the only one who seems to know about this “sex strike”?

If you can’t even muster up even a rudimentary response, then you are outright lying.

“Would you want to be with somebody who probably wants your race done away with (stereotyping white men, who are often self-hating, white anti-white, traitors)? Neither would I, which is the reason I, for the time being, do support the sex strike.”

The human race, warts and all, is what only matters. Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

“Stop White Genocide, and take away the reason for the white woman sex strike against White Genocide. #WWSSAWhiteGenocide”

Talk about nuts. Are you being persecuted against? Is that why you are making up this problem? Is the woman in your life on a sexual strike? How do your sons, if you even have any children, feel about their future knowing they will not get a taste of the sweet nectar?

“Fundamentally different, in that when a man has sex with another woman, he does not have sex with his wife less…”

He has broken the covenant. In the Bible, God says that once a man and a woman marry, they become one flesh. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 2:24

Jesus also says what God puts together, let no man tear apart. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19:6

Moreover, is the result of that sexual relationship with a woman other than his wife resulting in offspring?

“rather he has sex with his wife more, whereas when a woman cheats with another man she stops having sex with her husband, leading to family breakup.”

You are basing your argument on an assumption, that in every case, the wife refrains from having coitus with her husband. You can’t make that claim lest you know for absolute certainty that wives who cheat on their husbands stop having sex with their husbands. You don’t know that, you are only speculating. Speculating is not fact. Assuming is not truth.

You are really easy to intellectually destroy.

Again, get your wife to have a YouTube video stating that she is owned by you, that she is subservient to you, that you are able to have sex outside of marriage, that you teach your children your values.

They don’t care about actual, biological evidence of sexual behavior in humans and other animals, since they believe humans have “souls”, which make humans totally different. They don’t care about game theory, because souls. The notion of being cucked doesn’t bother them, because souls.

And they vote for Cruz, because he takes a hard line on whether or not white women and nigger sows should be allowed to abort nigger babies.

When America became prosperous, progressive cuckstains took it as a sign from Jewhovah that they were doing something right, and became cuckolds. Now USG still controls a great deal of prosperity, but there are less and less Americans, because progressive cuckstains are CUCKOLDS AND DYING.

Corvinus, what you have to answer for is the birth rate of Whites on this continent since the fymynysm you champion has taken effect. Why does Jewhovah punish the people with a low birth rate if Xe intended for Xir holy book to be interpreted in this manner?

I’m the first person here to have brought up Jews? You’re the one constantly mentioning the Jew that you worship. It doesn’t matter, does it? Jews are exactly the same as the rest of us, except that the Lᴏʀᴅ chose to manifest Xᴇʀꜱᴇʟꜰ to and amongst them.

But thanks for confirming that you don’t have an answer to why the feminism you correctly read in the Holy Bible caused the White birthrate to drop precipitously. Maybe you can claim that low birthrate isn’t actually a punishment?

I cite Bible passages to counter Jim’s ridiculous claims about religion and society and the roles of men/women. Guilty conscious on your part?

“It doesn’t matter, does it? Jews are exactly the same as the rest of us, except that the Lᴏʀᴅ chose to manifest Xᴇʀꜱᴇʟꜰ to and amongst them.”

Well, Jews are human beings.

“But thanks for confirming that you don’t have an answer to why the feminism you correctly read in the Holy Bible caused the White birthrate to drop precipitously.”

Are you contributing this drop, or do you have a significant brood of white underlings in your roost?

“Maybe you can claim that low birthrate isn’t actually a punishment?”

The low white birthrate is due to a number of factors. Regardless, do you believe white men and women have the liberty to decide for themselves to marry and sire offspring? to procreate with non-whites? to NOT have children?

the big problem is political correctness – corrected for accuracy, institutionalized lying. But this is another major problem, they don’t have the liberty to marry, since Gᴏᴅ Xɪʀꜱᴇʟꜰ prohibited divorce in the new testament, but divorce is always an option.

The words Gᴏᴅ used to ban divorce were suggesting that divorce was done by men to women. The opposite is observably true, but hey, Gᴏᴅ said it Xɪʀꜱᴇʟꜰ.

>You should conclude not that it is all over for whites, but rather, so long as women are emancipated, it is all over for whites.

good luck regaining control over white women. The anecdote that I shared above was merely to show how insanely white women are these days behaving, now that they’ve been unowned for at least a century, if not longer.

At the individual, personal, level it seems easy to bring women under control. You just have to believe that you are entitled, and that they want it, they are just testing you when they resist, nor really serious when they resist.

>At the individual, personal, level it seems easy to bring women under control. You just have to believe that you are entitled, and that they want it, they are just testing you when they resist, nor really serious when they resist.

>I think it would be easier, much easier, to do so collectively.

Establishing control over a women at the personal level is not difficult, so long as you’re willing to do what it takes. The reality however is that often, most men aren’t willing to do what it takes. It is true that women want to be wined and dined, to be showered with nice gifts, and unfortunately most men are, in this respect, willing to fulfill the desires of women.

Yet what women also want is rough and degrading sex, to be routinely disrespect and humiliated, to be (literally) slapped and kicked around, etc.. Most men are too squeamish to do all of this and so the women are left dissatisfied, without any respect for the men and, therefore, unowned. But sadly, it is only once all of this is done that women will finally submit to the yoke of a man.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘collectively’ in this context. When every women is owned–except maybe for the mentally ill, ugly, etc., women who men don’t want–then patriarchy is established. No need for a man who owns a woman to confirm his ownership with other men , who also own women. All that he needs to do is get together with his fellows and establish baseline rules for how each man is to behave towards the women not owned by him,

“good luck regaining control over white women. The anecdote that I shared above was merely to show how insanely white women are these days behaving, now that they’ve been unowned for at least a century, if not longer.”

Maintaining this unowned-ness (or the illusion thereof) takes up quite a bit of effort and resources. There’s no need to overly focus on how to regain control; things will snap back to their natural state once the elaborate mechanism that props up the current unnatural state is dismantled, or breaks down on its own due to economic reasons.

Or, as Jim has previously said, give men higher status than women and everything else would follow.

The traditional meaning of “beta” doesn’t mean a male who worships females, it means a male who recognizes the leadership of the alpha male. The status hierarchy is male-only. Women do not get to participate.

How many times must I say this? NO! Beta means a different sexual strategy. Looking up to the alpha is the beta strategy of certain species, in which it is beneficial to the betas to respect the alpha. Respect is by mutual agreement.

THERE ARE NO CUCKS IN NATURE! CUCKS BY DEFINITION VANISH FROM THE PAGE OF TIME!

The alpha strategy among White men is marriage. The beta strategy is technically referred to as ‘faggotry’.

“Establishing control over a women at the personal level is not difficult, so long as you’re willing to do what it takes.”

So, Irving, please offer us rubes particulars how YOU dominate your woman. How do you “own” her? What ground rules did you firmly establish? Why is she willing to submit to YOU? What makes YOU meet your every demand?

I would also surmise that you have a group of male friends who also engage in similar conduct. So, after getting together with your “fellows”, what additional standards and procedures were developed?

Otherwise, if you haven’t put into practice your theory in your own life, you are talking out of your ass.

“There are numerous blogs on this topic and no one who does not want to understand the answers is going to understand the answers.”

[Laughs] Exactly what an SJW would rhetorically say when their opponent is employ dialectic. It makes things easier for you to presume that I am unable to comprehend your philosophical underpinnings. I am pointing out major flaws in your argument, offering specific inconsistencies. It is not surprising that when a person’s worldview is sufficiently challenged, he/she resorts to this tactic.

“Interaction between men and women is primarily non verbal and pre verbal, and a verbal description is easily misunderstood, especially by those who wish to misunderstand it.”

Interaction between men and women could be primarily nonverbal, depending upon what level is the interaction, the context of that interaction, and the results of the conversation. Verbal description could be misunderstood due to a lack of experience in communicating their thoughts on complex matters, or internal fears when communicating directly with people, or unwillingness to offer specifics, or purposeful intent to leave out details that may be incriminating.

The Feminine Imperative is a passing fad; the Masculine Imperative is a fact of nature:

In every generation, a greater proportion of females than males pass on their genes, typically 80% vs. 40%. This means that males are subjected to stronger selection pressure than females, male-specific traits evolve faster than female-specific traits, and genes expressed in both sexes evolve in whichever way increases male fertility.

The FI cannot survive without white-knighting, tax-paying betas, but it does not allow such men to reproduce. Women honestly think that gosh, you’re such a nice guy, surely some girl will fall madly in love with you! (but they won’t, for the same reasons she didn’t)

You summed this up nicely Jim. Women occupy an authority space between men and children. They have never been authoritative equals to men, nor will they ever be. The time-preferences alone refuse to allow it.

White Knationalists are progressive universalists that consider whitekind perfectible if not for the perfidious Jew and the traitorous Ethnic Nationalist. They are trying to outholy the other progressives in support of their particular utopia.

Consequently, they view all the multitude of failures of white women to behave as their master race should as the influence of the Jew. Once the Jew is removed, they will be mothers to Aryan superhumans. White Knationalists have no plans to contain the destructive impulses of women because they do not recognize that they exist. They will pose no real threat to men that properly control their women. Given a choice between a servile, fawning shitlord and a masterful, commanding shitlord, women choose the master.

I am mocking the tendency of White Knight Knationalists to blame all facets of feminine treachery as somehow informed by the Jew. I do not blame the Jew for the cunty behavior of European women. I blame it on the previous generation’s shortsightedness and the current generation’s apathy and ignorance.

While the word racist took off around the time of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, implying that it both caused that law and was forced by that law, the word sexist took off only after that law.

The reason is obvious: the protections extended to niggers (and jews) by the Civil Rights Act were extended to women as well, the story goes, by a Southern senator trying to torpedo the bill by attaching something stupid to it. Thereafter, like niggers, since you could lose your job by not being progressive enough, it was only natural to get more and more progressive on women.

It’s worth noting that when the Republican Party was founded, long before the word sexist appeared, each state was required to send a committeeman and a committeewoman to the convention.

It may well be the case that when cuckstains passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they did not intend its effects on sex relations. It was designed to prevent Whites from putting their souls in peril by saying the word nigger, and the fact that that meant privileging niggers over Whites was likely ignored by the cuckstains, though probably not by Jews, who have been pushing civil rights laws since the Statute of Kalisz.

That’s what you get, “Jim”. The betas from the manosphere incl. ethnic religions want to blame pro-whites. That’s why you need to tell them about the white women sex strike against White Genocide. Otherwise, they’re going to ally with Mahomet because GENOtypes don’t matter.

No, there is not. Women are fully complicit in the genocide. Women are told to stay off the street at night if they wish to avoid being raped, and they go out at night anyway. Women invite the migrants in, put themselves in a position to be subject to forcible sexual intercourse, then make mild complaints about the occurrence so that they appear to be on the side of their co-ethnic men. To me, that suggests a less than sincere attempt at avoiding the migrants and their sexual advances.

Idiotic White Knationalists have to come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons why stupid, slutty white women are never to blame for their errors. In the case of deviant feminine sexuality, this is all the fault of the perfidious Jew and the nefarious migrants, a combination of deception, subversion, and predation.

To the more sensible observer, this is a result of women not being sufficiently controlled. The solution is to hang a few of the most obviously traitorous women–preferably older, nonfertile women–and force the rest into either marriage or servitude to men with enforceable authority over them. The youngest and most attractive women can be held back as rewards for the men who excel at removing the invaders and restoring order, to promote efficiency and economy in their work. Once power is removed from women and they are as politically helpless as they are physically helpless, they will submit to their ethnic men and stop enabling their genocide.

Peppermint, it was an article on the Daily Stormer, actually, that was wretchedly supplicating. A throwaway line about white women being confused by Jews. It was in an article about a Bulgarian girl, and perhaps I took it out of context.

My experience has been that when it comes to white women, most White Nationalists take the view that all their wrongs are the fault of someone else and not their own choices. Anything that cannot be rationalized away that way will be the result of being taught the wrong thing by Jews. Hence my derisive moniker of White Knationalists

Bring up game on WN Twitter and they lose their shit. It violates their view of the Perfect Aryan Princess. That view is common, as seen by Mr. Anglin having to mock it in the Stormer. Another regrettable and contemptible tendency is their rush to the side if any white women who fucks outside of her race, despite that she is permanently damaged and of little worth to us. Men like you understand it, but you seem to be a rarity. You I would not call a White Knationalist, because I have nit seen those tendencies in you.

> I simply mentioned that today’s criteria to determine mental illness is
> markedly different compared to 30-50 years ago.

You did more than that. You made the assertion that they would have led someone like Fromme to have been dealt with before she tried to kill. You have yet to supply any evidence to back up your assertion.

> “It’s generally acknowledged that Stockholm Syndrome is more prevalent in women than men.”

> Due to a combination of genetic AND environmental factors not
> exclusively “hardwired internal mechanisms”.

Really. What a bland, meaningless statement. Just who here has maintained that psychological attributes are solely genetic?

> SS results from a rather specific set of circumstances; thus, it is difficult
> to find a large number of people who experience Stockholm Syndrome
> to conduct studies with any sort of power, making it challenging to
> determine trends in the development and effects of the condition.

What you can do instead is generalize to broadly similar situations, such as the way women behave towards occupying military forces.
Or do you believe that war bride syndrome and collaboration horizontale are just figments of the imagination?

> “It makes sense that there would be selection pressure for women to
> be able to quickly shift allegiances, wouldn’t it?”

> For men and women, yes.

For women, yes. Men operated under an entirely different set of rules. The human mating system is one based on patriarchial clans where the men stay while the women disperse. Under that system, a disloyal man would simply be put down by the other members of his clan and enemies would kill him. Women OTOH would be captured and taken as wives or concubines.

(article on suttee/sati)
> You’re taking it more than face value, you stating it to be entirely accurate.

Wikipedia mentions it too. Go there and type “Sati practice” in the search box and you should be able to find it. I’d post the direct link but would like to avoid hitting the moderation queue.

> It’s a theory that you subscribe to,

It fits in with other measures societies have taken to deal with negative/antisocial female behavior. Another Indian custom is the dowry, which is a disincentive for a woman to flake on her marital obligations.

> “How do you know anything about me, let alone that I’m a cuck?”

> Hey, if he is able to get away with consistently and repeatedly making
> unsubstantiated generalizations all of the time, what’s the harm if I
> engage in that practice once in a while. Works for him, works for me.

You made a point-blank insult, not just an unsubstantiated generalization. Not that I’m terribly offended – just noting that it gives a good display of your level of argumentation style.

“The naysaying from everyone here starting to get to you?”

> Actually, I’m just getting started.

I must say you sure have a lot of free time. I used a GreaseMonkey script to count your posts in this topic and got 48, The same script can also filter out posts of people I consider too tiresome and/or inane to read. Guess who I’m considering adding to its list?

> “I have no reason to believe you know anything about what men and women “support”.”

> Exactly, that would require a major paradigm shift on your part.
> What is the incentive for you to even take into account a modicum of
> my own reasoned positions?

None, since you have no paradigm, no reasoning and no positions beyond a knee-jerk reaction when someone posts something you dislike.

So how long are we gonna have to wait for the ‘sitting pool-side’ totally cool and smooth “alphas” to step in and take care of that situation? Drinking and ‘game’ should run the foreigners out pretty quickly dontcha think?

Who is “you betas?” The idea is that “betas” have not caused this situation to happen as they are clueless spectators. And the “alphas” only have hedonism to offer, so they are not going to do anything either. Are “alphas” nationalistic?

Alphas are, and exist outside of political ideologies. They can be nationalists, socialists, communists, monarchists, or anarchists. They are leaders of men and take the best women. You are a beta, because you are crying about game and you have done nothing of note.

The NatSoc and White Nationalist types had to wait for a bunch of sex deprived autists to create a movement, then latched on. Then they try to run out the not so sex deprived autists and take the movement as their own. Problem is that you are nearly as cucked as the faggiest lefty or pussiest cuckservative, and we stand up for ourselves. If you expect someone else to save you, you have to make it worth our while.

I’m not sure what all you are even talking about now. Sounds like some “inside baseball” type of thing. I don’t know much about NatSocs on that level really. But as it stands, “alpha” means hedonistic bon vivant, not rescuer of civilization, at lest in this context.

An alpha male is a man who is sexually attractive to women and socially superior to other men. Whether men like that sit around and take advantage of the bounty of slutty women or try to repair some of the damage is their personal choice.

If you put women on a pedestal and grovel before them the way many White Nationalists do, you are going to achieve nothing. That is all. White Nationalists need to stop treating women like delicate innocents and treat them as irresponsible idiots that need to be controlled and directed. Once they do that, they can prevent women from interfering with their movement.

“An alpha male is a man who is sexually attractive to women and socially superior to other men.”

Corrected for accuracy —> An alpha male is an acknowledged leader of a peer group, with superior social skills and sexual prowess compared group members, by which he employs his intellect and charm generally for worthwhile endeavors, including monogamy and children.

Would you characterize yourself as an alpha? In what ways? Don’t chimp out on the details.

“Whether men like that sit around and take advantage of the bounty of slutty women or try to repair some of the damage is their personal choice.”

A personal choice that does not demonstrate true alphaism.

“White Nationalists need to stop treating women like delicate innocents and treat them as irresponsible idiots that need to be controlled and directed.”

So, Mr. Big Shot, tell us specifically how you treat your mother, your female relatives, and your girlfriend/wife. That is, offer us background information, i.e. a field report, regarding the strategies employed to command women to be submissive and subservient. How do YOU dominate the relationship?

If women (and men) believe a man is dominant, that he deserves to be in that position, since he has engaged in conduct and actions reflective of that status. Are you able to sort out through your own hypocrisies?

“And frequently does not deserve to be.”

Yes, according to those not selected as being alpha by their peers.

“If we could make women accept the male status hierarchy, hypergamy would be a lot more eugenic.”

Except human behavior frequently does not work that way.

“Unfortunately female perceptions of male status resemble those of a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters – inaccurate, and disturbingly inappropriate.”

From your warped perspective, yes. You are appropriating your values as being morally and legally superior, by which every action is therefore measured. In other words, there is only one sort of liberty you promote, and all other freedoms agreed upon by men and women individually and collectively is considered by you and only by you to be other than liberty.

“If female reproductive choices were under strong male supervision, which they are not, then an alpha male would be the acknowledged leader. But we do not live in that kind of society.”

Blame Roissy and the Boyzzz at Return of Kings. Blame men and women who have significant personal issues regarding relationships. Because the strong male supervision was significantly lacking in Roosh’s life, for example, as he decidedly failed to learn the lessons of getting married and having children.

I am largely agreeing with you, but for some reason you don’t seem to acknowledge that. I suspect you are attempting to be disagreeable, deliberately, in order to differentiate yourself and play tough guy. But I could be wrong.

The “alpha” in this context is the playboy, not the revolutionary tough guy. You know this. This is not an insult, it is what it is.

“If you put women on a pedestal and grovel before them the way many White Nationalists do, you are going to achieve nothing.”

I never promoted this- ever. I don;t know why you feel the need to iterate this to me. I hate that shit. But how many “alphas” who know better will keep quiet, go along with it, for short term gain and status as opposed to ending it?

“White Nationalists need to stop treating women like delicate innocents and treat them as irresponsible idiots that need to be controlled and directed.

Per Corvinus, the best leader of the group is ipso facto whomever men and women think is the best leader. I guess that’s true if the group has no contact with the natural world or with other groups, so leadership is merely a popularity contest.

Corvinus will of course read this as “Dave thinks he ought to be leader because he’s so smart.” With some people, it’s always personal.

“Per Corvinus, the best leader of the group is ipso facto whomever men and women think is the best leader.”

Of a peer group due to their high level i a number of skills. Be accurate next time.

“I guess that’s true if the group has no contact with the natural world or with other groups, so leadership is merely a popularity contest.”

In some cases, it is all about popularity. In other cases, the group recognizes his/her abilities in a number of areas and 1) defer to that skill level or 2) covet to be with that individual on a personal or professional level.

“Corvinus will of course read this as “Dave thinks he ought to be leader because he’s so smart.”

Alpha is whoever women think is alpha, who is frequently not the acknowledged leader of the group. And frequently does not deserve to be.

If we could make women accept the male status hierarchy, hypergamy would be a lot more eugenic.

Unfortunately female perceptions of male status resemble those of a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters – inaccurate, and disturbingly inappropriate.

If female reproductive choices were under strong male supervision, which they are not, then an alpha male would be the acknowledged leader. But we do not live in that kind of society.

This is exactly why I said what I’ve said the whole time, well put indeed. We certainly can make them do what we need them to, but, those that think themselves “alpha” are not the people to do that. They need this system in order to live their high time preference lifestyle of childfree cuckolding in order to garner a notch count sufficient enough to troll each other with during their internet signaling competitions. We get it, but is that going to ‘save’ anything? Would such people want a proper patriarchy? It wouldn’t work for them at all and they obviously make no actions toward it. Quite the contrary, their efforts are all in sustaining the current paradigm. And no, it is not so they can hasten the decline, they are simply high time preference parasites. Which is fine by me, it takes all types, but to pretend like they are doing anything more than that, and to blame clueless “betas” for the situation they participate in creating and sustaining and benefiting from…well, that’s just dumb.

Denny, I understand where you are coming from, now. I agree that the guys running around fucking easy women to increase their notch count are not going to save anything. On the other hand, the guys who reject those tools are just as useless, because they keep letting women destroy their attempts to fix the culture. Men have to find a way to bring women under their control enough to keep them from interfering while not to the point of spending all their energy fucking them and not doing something productive.

If I were trying to pick a fight, I would be far more insulting and aggressive. I was trying to explain the point to you, but you were already there. Our disagreement was us talking past each other.

Corvinus, I am not an alpha. I am an omega, celibate and alone. That does not mean that I cannot recognize where men and women differ. Men think men like Charles Manson are disgusting creatures, where women mail him their panties and want to marry him. Women agreed with men that Elliot Rogers was a pathetic creep, at least until he murdered several people. Then, they thought he was cute, while most men mocked him for being such a turd.

If only we were real men like Corvinus, women would recognize out superiority and love us for it. Or, I could just kill a few people and get all the nubile hotties I want.

» I am an omega, celibate and alone. That does not mean that I cannot recognize where men and women differ.

that and a weight to lift are enough to make you an alpha in the sense of being able to find a decent woman to get in a monogamous relationship with. Never forget that your ancestors were able to reproduce and win wars when they had to. The Aryan race is composed of the most dangerous animals Nature has ever created.

Dude, I’m sorry if I was being a prick to you. I reread some of my comments and they seemed a bit prickish. Yes, we are in agreement. Sometimes it seems so hard for people on the same page to convey that.

Denny, it is hard to convey tone through text, and I like to argue. No hard feelings.

Peppermint, I spent some time as one of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children. I am one of the dangerous motherfuckers, and I do lift. If you need a good man at your side in a race war, I will be there.

But I have seen too many good men torn down by women to think I am special. I am tired of dealing with women that can cost me my job or get me kicked out of school. I do not have the nuance and ease that handling women requires, so the white race will have to go on without me.

Corvinus you buttpussy, where did you go? Come on, I want to see you argue why Charles Manson should be a respected man. He has set off the great man detectors in a whole lot of vaginas, so he must have something to offer.

“Men think men like Charles Manson are disgusting creatures, where women mail him their panties and want to marry him. Women agreed with men that Elliot Rogers was a pathetic creep, at least until he murdered several people. Then, they thought he was cute, while most men mocked him for being such a turd.”

Those women who are just as depraved as Charles Manson or Elliot Rogers would engage in that conduct. You’re suffering from overgeneralization.

” Or, I could just kill a few people and get all the nubile hotties I want.”

If you are in jail, you’re not getting anything of the sort. Again, a few deranged women might find it interesting, but that is because they suffer from the same mental condition.

Those women who are just as depraved as Charles Manson or Elliot Rogers would engage in that conduct. You’re suffering from overgeneralization.

Any woman who has not submitted to the authority of a strong man is that depraved. It is not only that Charles Manson gets hot letters from chicks he has never met. It is that the guy in the corner office does not get hot letters from chicks he has never met.

“Any woman who has not submitted to the authority of a strong man is that depraved.”

Tens of millions of white men vehemently disagree. What makes YOU the authority that they ought to be commanded to follow your “advice”?

“It is not only that Charles Manson gets hot letters from chicks he has never met. It is that the guy in the corner office does not get hot letters from chicks he has never met.”

Charles Manson and the corner office guy are entirely two different situations. Manson draws attention from deranged women because of his notoriety. The man in the office corner for a wide range of reasons.

“Women hunger and thirst to be owned.”

Another one of your outlandish generalizations. SOME, yes, not ALL. And how many? Who truly knows.

“Any woman who has not submitted to the authority of a strong man is that depraved.”

Tens of millions of white men vehemently disagree.

And they have few children, if any, and very few grandchildren.

What makes YOU the authority

Observed reality.

Unowned unsupervised women fuck, and that is the kind of man they fuck. A large part of PUA is putting on the superficial appearance and attitude of that kind of man. Being Charles Manson is costly, but acting like you might be Charles Manson is cheap.

“Women hunger and thirst to be owned.”

Another one of your outlandish generalizations

I am pretty good at predicting individual female behavior. Therefore my model of their internal state is reasonably accurate. Their apparent resistance to ownership is a shit test, and not actual resistance. They give their man a hard time by resisting, but at the same time go out of their way to give their man an opportunity to win, to conquer and subdue them.

Similarly, their resistance to supervision and control is deliberately self sabotaging – they make sure that they can be supervised and controlled even while defying or attempting to evade supervision and control – they refrain from resisting supervision and control in ways that would be excessively effective.

Why are you willing to accept that SOME women want to be owned by a strong man? Surely such behavior is so strange to you that you would think no women are like that? What happened to men and women being exactly the same? Do you think that some men are like that too?

But we tell you that ALL women are like that, because we know what sexual strategy human women use. Whereas cat women just want to be raped and then left by a strong man, bear women are just fine with being taken by the man who controls the area, and duck men and women have an equilibrium between rape, one night stands, and fatherhood behavior.

The PUA’s, indeed. But there tens of millions of white men who refrain from “owning” their wife AND have children. So, in order to prove your “observed reality”, you have to offer evidence. Please locate sources that definitively state that tens of millions of white men who do not “own” their wife also have few or no children. Looking forward to your research.

Again, why do you disrespect your fellow Caucasians? Do they not have the liberty to make their own personal decisions?

“What makes YOU the authority? Observed reality.”

Which is rife with confirmation bias and errors in rational thought.

“Unowned unsupervised women fuck, and that is the kind of man they fuck”

Corrected for accuracy —> Men and women desire to have sex outside of marriage, and look for someone who is willing to engage in such conduct. In either case, their behavior is considered immoral by the dominant values of society.

“A large part of PUA is putting on the superficial appearance and attitude of that kind of man.”

Which contributes mightily to the problem because these men lack the requisite internal moral compass. Their parents observably failed to instill the proper values in their children.

“I am pretty good at predicting individual female behavior. Therefore my model of their internal state is reasonably accurate.”

Predicting. Which is not an exact science. You could easily be other than accurate in making generalizations about men and women.

Note that you also stated reasonably accurate. The key is how accurate? What metrics are involved in “reasonably accurate”? What numbers are we talking about?

“Their apparent resistance to ownership is a shit test, and not actual resistance.”

So, how does your wife feel about this shit test? Why is she willing to be “owned by you”? Please, by all means, have her blog about her willingness to have you dominate her life in all aspects.

“They give their man a hard time by resisting, but at the same time go out of their way to give their man an opportunity to win, to conquer and subdue them.”

SOME women, yes. As you clearly stated, you are predicting. Your statement, however, states otherwise. It comes across as being 100% accurate. You are making as simplistic assumption about complex human behaviors.

“Similarly, their resistance to supervision and control is deliberately self sabotaging – they make sure that they can be supervised and controlled even while defying or attempting to evade supervision and control – they refrain from resisting supervision and control in ways that would be excessively effective.”

SOME women, yes. How do know you are accurate for each and every case compared to those who actually involved in the relationship?

Again, please tell the readership how you are able to “own” women? How did you convince your wife that you “own” her? How are you explaining to your children about this “ownership”?

I am speculating here, but it appears that Jim is projecting. He is in a marriage where he WISHES to “own” his wife and is fantasizing for his acolytes about that “ownership”.

Peppermint…

“Why are you willing to accept that SOME women want to be owned by a strong man?”

Observed reality. Millions of white men do not share the same sentiments as Jim, who insists his observed reality is the truth. It is merely his opinion. If Jim believes all men should completely adhere to his belief system, then there observably is no such thing as freedom of choice or liberty.

What makes Jim act as the sole arbiter of human behavior?

“Surely such behavior is so strange to you that you would think no women are like that?”

SOME women act as though they desire to be owned.

“What happened to men and women being exactly the same? Do you think that some men are like that too?”

SOME men want to own women, and SOME men believe “owning” a woman in a relationship is inherently moral and justified. Conventional standards of decency prevail, however, in a civilized society.

“But we tell you that ALL women are like that, because we know what sexual strategy human women use.”

Not all women employ those sexual strategies to the level or extent that Jim or you or others believe they do. That would mean in every case, under every circumstance, women subconsciously want to be owned. That is insane logic.

“Whereas cat women just want to be raped and then left by a strong man, bear women are just fine with being taken by the man who controls the area, and duck men and women have an equilibrium between rape, one night stands, and fatherhood behavior.”

There is no such thing as “cat women” or “bear women” or “duck men and women”. You are making up categories to suit a narrative, similar to SJW’s.

But there tens of millions of white men who refrain from “owning” their wife AND have children.

Maybe one child, if they are lucky, and then usually their wife stops having sex with them – and usually their wife leaves them and forbids access to their child, or it is someone else’s child. The kind of marriage that the state commands, feminist approved marriage, equalist marriage, simply does not work. People just don’t stick together and continue to have sex, which severely impairs having and raising children. They act like gays in gaymarriage. Pretty soon the wife is thinking it is an open marriage. If they do manage to have a child, probably badly raised, and that child seldom has any children.

To successfully have and raise children, husband and wife must form one household. One household must have one master. If close, must be unequal. If equal, two households. A lot of people try raising children in two households with visitation rights. It is a disaster.

Further, a woman, any woman, all women, just do not really like a man who cannot master her, and she will just feel like moving on.

A female cat wants a tomcat who can rape her. A female human rather likes that also, but she also wants a man who can master her and make her part of the household that he owns, make her part of what he owns.

Only the kind of marriage that the state forbids, Pauline marriage, actually works, to have children together and raise children together. And women are attracted to criminals in part because Pauline marriage is criminalized.

A refutation should reference evidence. All you have is supposition. Where’s the proof, Jim?

“and then usually their wife stops having sex with them – and usually their wife leaves them and forbids access to their child, or it is someone else’s child.”

How do you know personally this sort of thing happens in every case?

“The kind of marriage that the state commands, feminist approved marriage, equalist marriage, simply does not work.”

That is observably false. It works for those white men who are married and have “maybe one” child. How do you know what they experience is something they are actually miserable?

“People just don’t stick together and continue to have sex, which severely impairs having and raising children. They act like gays in gaymarriage. Pretty soon the wife is thinking it is an open marriage. If they do manage to have a child, probably badly raised, and that child seldom has any children.”

What are the statistics involved? What sources are you able to offer besides your speculation?

Probably and seldom are not absolutes or certainties. It is therefore possible at worse and likely at best you are wrong in your assessment.

“To successfully have and raise children, husband and wife must form one household. One household must have one master.”

Corrected for accuracy —> A husband and wife can “rule” a household together. In some cases, a man dominates, and in other cases a woman dominates. In most cases, tens of millions of white males and their wives live well in their household as equals, as they have decided for themselves in this situation.

“Further, a woman, any woman, all women, just do not really like a man who cannot master her, and she will just feel like moving on.”

These statements are exactly why my hunch is more than a hunch. I think Jim you are in this situation yourself and are projecting what you want to do, but lack the guts, guile, and gumption.

Tell us, Jim, how do you control your wife? How are you the master in the relationship?

I mean, if you are successful in this regard, why are purposely evading simple questions?

I personally know it happens in a lot of cases, and have seen no counter examples.

There was an academic survey on equal sharing of housework, primarily surveying married academics and highly educated people. They found some cases of equal sharing of housework, but made the disturbing discovery that where there was equal sharing of housework, there was no sex between husband and wife. Large survey of a highly progressive community, found no examples of functional marriage with equal sharing of housework. Zero.

Same principle as Marie Curie proves there are no female scientists. If equalist marriage worked, there would be a poster boy and poster girl. They cannot even find one decent example to make into a poster.

They have criminalized marriage as it used to be throughout all of human history, yet are unable to produce a single attractive example of a successful new model marriage.

Where is the happily married dual income marriage where they share the chores equally?

Every magazine, every tv show, every preacher tells us about the household chores. Where is their poster girl marriage?

“Tens of millions” you say, but if there was a single one it would be on a poster beside Emmet Till, Martin Trayvon, Marie Curie, and Amelia Earhart

— There is no such thing as “cat women” or “bear women” or “duck men and women”. You are making up categories to suit a narrative, similar to SJW’s.

Denying the obvious fact that humans evolved from other animals that did things differently and to understand sexual behavior in humans we should also understand sexual behavior in other species that act the way our lineage almost certainly used to in the 800 million years since the dawn of sexual reproduction.

Yes, souls theory is the first, last, and only refuge of feminism, antiracism, transgenderism, and every other cuckold SJW theory.

“I personally know it happens in a lot of cases, and have seen no counter examples.”

A lot of cases from your direct personal experience, but not the experiences of other people. Perhaps no counter examples in your own life, or perhaps there are instances but you refuse to acknowledge their existence because it challenges the narrative.

“There was an academic survey on equal sharing of housework, primarily surveying married academics and highly educated people.”

Cite the exact source, Jim. You’ve been known to make shit up.

Correlation does not establish causation, and especially when it comes to sex, there is an inherent risk of reporting bias and selective sampling, not to mention the mood of a subject at the time of the survey.

This study says something entirely different, taking into consideration the caveats I just listed.

“I personally know it happens in a lot of cases, and have seen no counter examples.”

A lot of cases from your direct personal experience, but not the experiences of other people.

Every successful marriage that I observe is quietly and furtively eighteenth century.

Tens of millions of white husbands and their white wives, Jim. It’s right there in front of you.

If there were any equalist successful marriages that I have failed to observe, one of them would be on a poster with Amelia Earhart and Martin Trayvon.

If it is a dual income equalist marriage, then the chores should be shared equally. There is a flood of propaganda in favor of men doing the chores, but they cannot find one successful marriage with equal sharing of chores. Which tells me that every supposedly feminist husband in every supposed equalist successful marriage rules over his wife.

Remember Jian Ghomeshi claimed to be a feminist. Obviously if you ask an academic if he treats his wife as an equal, he is going to say yes, because otherwise he would lose tenure, but if it is a dual income marriage and he is not doing an equal share of the chores, he is lying to avoid punishment by the state.

“Every successful marriage that I observe is quietly and furtively eighteenth century.”

Sure, from your perspective. That does not mean you are able to logically conclude that ALL marriages ought to be held to this standard, because it’s not your marriage. Again, tens of millions of white husbands and their wives have the liberty to decide what marriage they want. Not up to you, fascist.

“There is a flood of propaganda in favor of men doing the chores, but they cannot find one successful marriage with equal sharing of chores.”

The study I cited disproves your hypothesis.

“Remember Jian Ghomeshi claimed to be a feminist. Obviously if you ask an academic if he treats his wife as an equal, he is going to say yes, because otherwise he would lose tenure, but if it is a dual income marriage and he is not doing an equal share of the chores, he is lying to avoid punishment by the state.”

[Laughs] so a person gives an answer that you otherwise don’t agree with, and automatically that person is being other than honest; therefore, your observations only matter. That’s a great way to live, Jim.
That’s also fascist.

Every successful marriage that I observe is quietly and furtively eighteenth century.”

Sure, from your perspective.

Jim’s poster girl principle:

If they were not secretly committing crimes against social justice behind the scenes, you guys would be able to find a successful dual income marriage where they split the chores down the middle. And would publicize the hell out of it.

“If they were not secretly committing crimes against social justice behind the scenes, you guys would be able to find a successful dual income marriage where they split the chores down the middle. And would publicize the hell out of it.”

It is a fact that tens of millions of white husbands and their wives divide the household tasks. It is a fact that one study indicates that their sex lives are more fulfilling.

Why are you a fascist? Why ought all white men and women adhere to your philosophies 100% of the time? Do they not have their own free will?

“The study you cited puts a politically correct spin on the fact that they could not find one successful marriage with equal sharing of chores.”

That was not the purpose of the study Jim. Furthermore, you have to offer counter evidence to support your assertion that there was “political spin” involved in the study I cited. You make that claim, now you have to support it. A claim is not truth.

And, of course, the burden is on you to find a source that ALL successful marriages are the result of the husbands/wives not equally dividing chores. Since you cannot even provide the source for the study you used to support your past “argument” about men/women and chores, you’ll go on flinging more bullshit.

“Corrected for accuracy: they SAY what they are taught in school that they are required to say, instead of what they are shown on TV will get them in trouble for saying.”

So, tens of millions of husbands and wives…brainwashed. All of them actually want to say the “truth”, but were taught not to tell the” truth”. And you know this to be definitively accurate HOW? Have you talked to tens of millions of people? Have they told you directly that, yes, we have been indoctrinated? How do YOU know you are completely and entirely accurate? What is the likelihood that you actually wrong here?

Because you are giving Jim a run for his money with his knack for flinging shit.

Answer the questions–Why ought all white men and women adhere to your philosophies 100% of the time? Do they not have their own free will?

“It is because YOU demand total obedience in every thought.”

I’m not the one claiming that all whites have to abide by your philosophies 100% of the time. I am not the one claiming that they lack free will.

So, tens of millions of husbands and wives…brainwashed. All of them actually want to say the “truth”, but were taught not to tell the” truth”. And you know this to be definitively accurate HOW?

Through being deluged with propaganda from every institution, and from seeing males terrorized by educational institutions.

Through observing the glaring discrepancy between the lives normal sane people actually live, and the lives that they piously say that they live.

As progressivism demands ever more extreme, unnatural, and indeed life threatening behavior, people’s hypocrisy grows every more extreme, and ever more visible, piously saying one thing and doing another.

— All of them actually want to say the “truth”, but were taught not to tell the” truth”.

You know perfectly well that the truth doesn’t even enter their heads because they are terrified of committing thought crimes.

My gf thinks she’s a BDSM sub and I’m her dom. She cheerfully does most of the chores while cheerfully telling me how much she appreciates how we split everything 50/50. I’m pretty happy win my life and don’t want to rock the boat too much, and I’m certainly not interested in killing anyone.

Jake probably has student loans from his film degree (thanks for the milennialist refusal to recognize that life has stages, christcucks/singularity cucks!). He has been trying to sign up for those bullshit lrn2code boot camps that exist to give credentials to shitskins and women and then blackmail large companies into hiring them. His penis is mostly intact.

If I had been born later, I might right now be a ten year old boy trying to sign up for genital mutilation.

Feminists like you don’t need to answer to me. Feminists need to answer to Jake, and, if they refuse to and hold on for some more years, they’ll need to answer to the children they’ve “transgendered”, grown up, with no prospect for a career, no genitals anyway, having been taught, tyvm Common Core, absolutely nothing but hatred in school. Some of them will figure out why they have neither career prospects nor genitals, and that it was well known TODAY that transgender surgery increases the suicide rate. Since their own family did it to them, they will truly have nothing to lose.

“Through being deluged with propaganda from every institution, and from seeing males terrorized by educational institutions.”

Right, because MPAI, unable to determine for themselves what to think and how to think. You, the white knight, will rescue the damsels in distress from Cultural Marxism and command them to think only one way, the “right” way. That is fascism at its core. Merely state anything you disagree with as propaganda. Great reasoning, Jim.

“Through observing the glaring discrepancy between the lives normal sane people actually live, and the lives that they piously say that they live.”

Your observations are not truisms. not absolutisms. If that be the case, you would be God. You’re not. People are able to freely decide what they want to believe it.

“As progressivism demands ever more extreme, unnatural, and indeed life threatening behavior, people’s hypocrisy grows every more extreme, and ever more visible, piously saying one thing and doing another.”

Corrected for accuracy–As neo-reactionary thought demands ever more extreme, unnatural, and indeed life threatening behavior, its supporters grow even more extreme, and even more visible, piously saying one thing and doing another. Where is Bryce LaLiberte when you need him?

“Because Nature or Nature’s God commands it.”

Only if those people are commanded by the God YOU believe to be. That’s the thing about religion. Those who believe in truth believe in their faith, and those non-believers or those who believe their truth is someone more truthful than others is less than the truth.

“Men and women are different. So, if close, must be unequal. If equal, cannot be close.”

Again, that’s your opinion, which in the end, isn’t going to become a law or an act or some popular movement. Knock yourself out promoting it.

Peppermint…

“You know perfectly well that the truth doesn’t even enter their heads because they are terrified of committing thought crimes.”

Right, because you know everything. You’re acting as if your omnipotent. You’re not. Not even close.

“Men and women are different. So, if close, must be unequal. If equal, cannot be close.”

Again, that’s your opinion,

That is simple reality – theory predicts, thousands of years of experience confirms, the Manson family and and many others confirm it over and over again, and you guys cannot find one successful equalist family to put on a poster.

You have made the behaviors that are necessary for men and women to reproduce successfully illegal.

Corvinus said:
>I was referring to current law regarding those individuals who were not diagnosed with mental illness and who would be considered under statute as being a danger to themselves or others.

> Two completely different things. Nice try.

Well, where’s your supporting evidence that they’re letting more people in to make up for the large numbers they’re letting out? The numbers of people as a percentage of the population has dropped markedly since the 60s.

> Studies of Stockholm Syndrome, for example, has been associated with > MEN AND WOMEN bonding with their captors in abusive situations

It’s generally acknowledged that Stockholm Syndrome is more prevalent in women than men. Rollo Tomassi’s article on War Brides goes into why this would be the case. It makes sense that there would be selection pressure for women to be able to quickly shift allegiances, wouldn’t it?

(concerning suttee)
> There is more to the story than what your source stated.

There always is, isn’t there? For now, I’m going to take the article at face value and consider that there’s a strong possibility that the suttee custom evolved to deal with a very real social problem. If you find anything directly refuting it, let me know.

> Of course you are going to come to his defense,

His model of M/F nature is comprehensible and supported by historical and current evidence. I have yet to read anything from you more coherent than some gaseous “you can’t generalize” bleatings.

> white knight. You’re not going to lose your privileges, cuck.

Pointless insults. How do you know anything about me, let alone that I’m a cuck? And what privileges do I have that you don’t? So far, he hasn’t bothered to kick you off his blog.

> Seems reasonable to me that you’re a toadie

The naysaying from everyone here starting to get to you? Here’s a suggestion – take a break from posting – I’ve counted over 40 from you on this topic.

> A great majority of men and women support other than your position.
> They have the liberty to make those decisions.

I have no reason to believe you know anything about what men and women “support”.

Even if women hated being ruled, too bad. Men are stronger, and we have no desire to be forced into extinction. If women can force extinction, then men can force reproduction, and we are better at enforcing our will. If we have to chain women to beds and keep them in cages to perpetuate ourselves, we will, and thus replace you. Your sterile women would leave empty houses for our children and grandchildren.

“That is simple reality – theory predicts, thousands of years of experience confirms, the Manson family and and many others confirm it over and over again, and you guys cannot find one successful equalist family to put on a poster.”

Jim, you have proven consistently when there is counter evidence, as the one study I cited that called into seriously question your claim, you automatically label it as being riddled with propaganda and therefore utterly invalid. You are incapable of recognizing anything other than your ideology as being exclusively the truth.

“You have made the behaviors that are necessary for men and women to reproduce successfully illegal.”

Corrected for accuracy —> Today, men and women make their own decisions who to date, marry, and have children, within the confines of the laws of a given society.

Ray…

“Well, where’s your supporting evidence that they’re letting more people in to make up for the large numbers they’re letting out? The numbers of people as a percentage of the population has dropped markedly since the 60s.”

Why would I dispute this fact? I do not know why you believe that directly or indirectly made the claim that states today are trying to “take in” more mentally ill patients. I simply mentioned that today’s criteria to determine mental illness is markedly different compared to 30-50 years ago.

“It’s generally acknowledged that Stockholm Syndrome is more prevalent in women than men.”

Due to a combination of genetic AND environmental factors, not exclusively “hardwired internal mechanisms”. SS results from a rather specific set of circumstances; thus, it is difficult to find a large number of people who experience Stockholm Syndrome to conduct studies with any sort of power, making it challenging to determine trends in the development and effects of the condition.

“It makes sense that there would be selection pressure for women to be able to quickly shift allegiances, wouldn’t it?” For men and women, yes.

“There always is, isn’t there? For now, I’m going to take the article at face value and consider that there’s a strong possibility that the suttee custom evolved to deal with a very real social problem. If you find anything directly refuting it, let me know.”

You’re taking it more than face value, you stating it to be entirely accurate. It’s a theory that you subscribe to, whose two sources were from the 1800’s which merely mentioned about its evolution without going into specific detail. I offered a link to several alternative theories which are also valid, which noted that this cultural practice was relegated primarily to the warrior classes and their wives, not the general Indian population.

“How do you know anything about me, let alone that I’m a cuck?”

Hey, if he is able to get away with consistently and repeatedly making unsubstantiated generalizations all of the time, what’s the harm if I engage in that practice once in a while. Works for him, works for me.

“The naysaying from everyone here starting to get to you?”

Actually, I’m just getting started.

“I have no reason to believe you know anything about what men and women “support”.”

Exactly, that would require a major paradigm shift on your part. What is the incentive for you to even take into account a modicum of my own reasoned positions?

shadowed knight…

“Nevermind liberty. Liberty without perpetuity will result in extinction. Your liberty is below replacement fertility.”

I have white children, so my perpetuity is secure. My name will live on with my sons. Do you have this security? Or are you impotent?

No, all the niggers and spics out there will continue that liberty with kids and their future generations who want free stuff.

“Even if women hated being ruled, too bad.”

So, actually, liberty does matter in this case. How do YOU rule women? What measures do you put in place?

See, you are making my case for me. You want things to return to how they were, to preserve past tradition. That is one of the focal points of conservatism. Anything that gets in the way of that ideology from reaching its full potential constitutes a threat. How does one remove a threat? Taking away liberty. That is fascism. You are no different than the SJW’s. Now, if you live in a community where women agree to be “owned”, that the people there set those standards of behavior, more power to you.

Do you live in a such a community? How do you propose to create your utopia?

“Men are stronger, and we have no desire to be forced into extinction.”

Except the observable truth is that men are not on the verge of becoming extinct.

“If women can force extinction, then men can force reproduction, and we are better at enforcing our will.”

By taking away liberty, SJW style.

“If we have to chain women to beds and keep them in cages to perpetuate ourselves, we will, and thus replace you.”

Again, how to propose to ensure your vision will come to fruition? What tactics will be employed? How do YOU know what is best for white men and women? Who made YOU the sole arbiter of what is “right” and “wrong”?

“Your sterile women would leave empty houses for our children and grandchildren.”

Jim, you have proven consistently when there is counter evidence, as the one study I cited that called into seriously question your claim, you automatically label it as being riddled with propaganda and therefore utterly invalid.

“Due to a combination of genetic AND environmental factors, not exclusively “hardwired internal mechanisms”.”

There is no evidence that strong, independent feminists raised in a perfectly equal environment (modulo invisible sexist mind rays) are less susceptible to “Stockholm Syndrome”. I suspect that the correlation, if a study is done, would point the wrong way, so it won’t be published.

Right, pdimov, everything falls primarily on hereditary. Those researchers out there who state otherwise are flat out lying or conducted experiments with shaky methodologies or baseless conclusions.

Seriously, how do people think this exclusively?

“There is no evidence that strong, independent feminists raised in a perfectly equal environment (modulo invisible sexist mind rays) are less susceptible to “Stockholm Syndrome”.”

How do you there is “no strong evidence” if you cannot even muster up the requisite study? Furthermore, would your hypothesis even be measurable and thus worthy of investigation?

“I suspect that the correlation, if a study is done, would point the wrong way, so it won’t be published.”

And if one of your ideological sweethearts had conducted this study–you know, to show SJW’s a thing or two about science–and came up with the conclusion opposite of your beliefs, would they publish it? Would you actually believe their conclusions?

You don’t know whether or not the results would be a certain way. That is why you conduct an experiment. All you have is mere speculation, not truth.

“In other news…women still being women.”

Corrected for accuracy –> People being people.

I assume you are intimately involved in this situation, and you have direct knowledge of her reasons and motivations.

Corvinus, what is the total fertility rate for white libertarians? Is it better or worse than the total fertility rate for whites in general? Your four children do not mean much if the rest of your libertarian friends are not having children in sufficient numbers.

No one made me the judge of right and wrong. I took it upon myself. Your failure to build a functioning nation and your abject and cringing surrender before liberals shows that you will fold before me, as well. I bet your father talked tough about fighting communists, too, and look at you. Your sons will learn to keep their wives in line, and your daughters will learn to serve their husbands. As they are told.

“Right, pdimov, everything falls primarily on hereditary. Those researchers out there who state otherwise are flat out lying or conducted experiments with shaky methodologies or baseless conclusions.”

If you’re alluding to my other post, even Wikipedia, that bastion of reich wing thought, knows that intelligence and height have very high heritability (over 80%). There are other traits that have lower heritability.

“How do you there is “no strong evidence” if you cannot even muster up the requisite study? Furthermore, would your hypothesis even be measurable and thus worthy of investigation?”

The hypothesis – that environmental factors affect the susceptibility to “Stockholm Syndrome” – is yours. I’m saying that there is no evidence for it.

“Corrected for accuracy –> People being people.”

I can think of no occasion on which your “correction for accuracy” have made a statement either more correct or more accurate.

Others try to mock you, but they are completely outclassed by your own self-mockery.

“I assume you are intimately involved in this situation, and you have direct knowledge of her reasons and motivations.”

More reasons and motivations being reasons and motivations. Interesting how “Stockholm Syndrome” always tends to affect the women regardless of who is the captor and who is the captive. Sneaky things, those syndromes with city names. Strike completely at random, except possibly due to unspecified environmental factors. Lead water pipes, probably.

At some point it may dawn on you that to maintain the illusion of men and women being the same, you need to carefully avoid putting women in situations in which they will forcefully expose the pretense as a lie. But I will not be holding my breath.

» Your sons will learn to keep their wives in line, and your daughters will learn to serve their husbands. As they are told.

Learn nothing. It’s the easiest, most obvious thing in the world. It takes intelligence and willpower to fuck it up.

And now that everyone knows that being poly means being Jake Rapp, King of Cucks, and having Alison shove a vibrator up your ass to prove that you’re heteroflexible, people aren’t even going to want to deviate from monogamy.

For the women, divorce doesn’t seem like as good a deal when you grew up with a single mom.

And the boys who are right now having their genitals destroyed, within the decade they will begin murdering “doctors”, “educators”, family members, and feminists.

“Corvinus, what is the total fertility rate for white libertarians? Is it better or worse than the total fertility rate for whites in general? Your four children do not mean much if the rest of your libertarian friends are not having children in sufficient numbers.”

What is your batting average when it comes to white children? Have you ponied up for the cause?

Moreover, I’m not libertarian. I’m an American who works to think for himself.

“Your failure to build a functioning nation and your abject and cringing surrender before liberals shows that you will fold before me, as well.”

That is patently false. The nation has been already built and is functioning. How well is a matter of debate. But it will continue to function so long as the tens of millions of white husbands and wives are able to make decisions for themselves regarding their relationship.

“Your sons will learn to keep their wives in line, and your daughters will learn to serve their husbands. As they are told.”

Tell us, how do YOU keep your girlfriend or wife in line? How do YOU “own” them? You conspicuously avoid this inquiry. Telling.

And my sons have the liberty to make their own decisions when they turn 18 regarding who they date, marry, and procreate with.

Why are you a fascist?

pdimov…

“The hypothesis – that environmental factors affect the susceptibility to “Stockholm Syndrome” – is yours. I’m saying that there is no evidence for it.”

It’s more than a hypothesis, and it is not “mine”. According to clinical psychologist, Dr. Joseph Carver, four conditions serve as the basis of Stockholm Syndrome:

Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one’s captor is willing to act on that threat

The captive’s perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror

Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor

Perceived inability to escape.

Some theorists have also shed light to the emergence of paradoxical bonds between victim and aggressor, appealing to emotional cues developed in the context of the traumatic environment. In the work of Dutton and Painter (1981), they have depicted a scenario in which two factors, the power imbalance and the intermittent good-bad treatment, generate in the battered woman a traumatic bonding that ties her with the aggressor through behaviors of docility.

It’s now on you to offer evidence to refute their findings. Best wishes.

“I can think of no occasion on which your “correction for accuracy” have made a statement either more correct or more accurate.”

I wouldn’t expect you to.

“At some point it may dawn on you that to maintain the illusion of men and women being the same, you need to carefully avoid putting women in situations in which they will forcefully expose the pretense as a lie. But I will not be holding my breath.”

Your problem is making sweeping generalizations based on one or two events and assuming that the complex factors involved are merely the result of a woman’s inherent flaws. Nothing else is taken into account. Any and all evidence that calls into question your one trick pony is immediately deemed propaganda, or a lie, or whatever shit you can flight. It’s a simple way to live I suppose.

peppermint…

“And the boys who are right now having their genitals destroyed, within the decade they will begin murdering “doctors”, “educators”, family members, and feminists.”

I said that I do not have a wife or girlfriend, remember? I do not have the social reflexes or experience to make sure that women think of me as sufficiently attractive. I am laid back because when I get upset, I get very upset. The last man to push me to the breaking point very nearly died for his trouble. Women see this as a weakness because they are foolish and simple, and women are not attracted to weak men.

Your daughters will exercise their liberty to choose to have sex with a variety of degenerates until they reach the end of their childbearing years, at which point they will try to push out a child or two with a husband with whom they will exercise their sexual liberty to not have sex. Unless, of course, they are part of the growing number of women who have been sterilized by STDs, and then they will not be able to have that child. Your sons will exercise their sexual liberty to wait until their peer women decide it is time to get that baby in real quick, and upon the birth of their children, they will respect their wives sexual liberty to not have sex anymore. Maybe they will marry a woman who will use her liberty to choose her sexual partners to choose to have sex with the same old degenerates while she is still married to your son. She may even invoke her liberty to divorce your son, and take her child with her.

“It’s now on you to offer evidence to refute their findings. Best wishes.”

There is nothing to refute. What you wrote bears no relevance to whether person A would be more susceptible than person B to Stockholm Syndrome, and if so, whether genetic factors (such as, for instance, presence of Y chromosome) hold more weight than environmental factors (such as, for instance, growing up in an equal, feminist society, as opposed to an evil, patriarchal one.)

“Your problem is making sweeping generalizations based on one or two events and assuming that the complex factors involved are merely the result of a woman’s inherent flaws.”

Sure. As opposed to your arriving at your “men and women are the same” conclusion based on zero events.

Of course not. It’s easier intellectually on your part to close your eyes with your hands and yell “Don’t see anything, don’t see anything, don’t see anything”.

“What you wrote bears no relevance to whether person A would be more susceptible than person B to Stockholm Syndrome, and if so, whether genetic factors (such as, for instance, presence of Y chromosome) hold more weight than **environmental factors (such as, for instance, growing up in an equal, feminist society, as opposed to an evil, patriarchal one.)**”

Bears no relevance? Son, why do you think psychologists debate whether nature or nurture, or a combination, is the cause for mental illness?

**Those are too broad and are loaded with biases. That is, there are too many variables involved to isolate. It is apparent you have difficulties understanding the basics of psychology.

“Sure. As opposed to your arriving at your “men and women are the same” conclusion based on zero events.”

My conclusion is that the causes of Stockholm Syndrome are multiple and complex, rather than exclusively or nearly because of a women’s inherent traits. I offered two instances in which psychologists explained that environmental factors are pivotal regardless of sex. It is now up to you to break down their rationale. You then proceed to triple down, which is your m.o., with a link without the requisite insight as to what is the relationship and relevance to your position.

Are you even familiar with the rules of discourse?

jim…

“And yet when the evidence is right in front of your face, you refuse to commit thought crime.”

Evidence that has been twisted and turned to suit your narrative. And I’m still waiting for your source. Tsk, tsk, you must be too busy showing your wife who is boss.

shadowed knight…

“I do not have the social reflexes or experience to make sure that women think of me as sufficiently attractive.”

Yet you feel qualified to definitively state that white husbands ought to treat their white wives in the “correct” manner.

“I am laid back because when I get upset, I get very upset. The last man to push me to the breaking point very nearly died for his trouble.”

Sure they did.

“Women see this as a weakness because they are foolish and simple, and women are not attracted to weak men.”

Corrected for accuracy —> Women are attracted to men for a host of reasons. Men are also wary of those women why get upset despite being laid back. That is a HUMAN quality.

“Your daughters…”

I don’t have daughters, I have sons.

“will exercise their liberty to choose to have sex with a variety of degenerates until they reach the end of their childbearing years, at which point they will try to push out a child or two with a husband with whom they will exercise their sexual liberty to not have sex.”

Assume I have daughters. It’s not “will exercise”, it’s “could exercise”. When they turn 18, they have their own life to live, mindful of the lessons that they were taught by their mother and father. It is no different than with my sons.

“Unless, of course, they are part of the growing number of women who have been sterilized by STDs, and then they will not be able to have that child.”

I’m sure you have a source to back up your claim here.

“Your sons will exercise their sexual liberty to wait until their peer women decide it is time to get that baby in real quick, and upon the birth of their children, they will respect their wives sexual liberty to not have sex anymore.”

You assume that their wives will stop having sex once they have children.

Since you are not married or have a girlfriend, you are speaking from a decidedly lack of experience on this matter.

“Maybe they will marry a woman who will use her liberty to choose her sexual partners to choose to have sex with the same old degenerates while she is still married to your son.”

Exactly, maybe. Or, perhaps, he will be in a relationship where his wife is faithful. Again, since he has learned the elements of Game, his chances have increased dramatically to cull the herd from undesirable women.

“She may even invoke her liberty to divorce your son, and take her child with her.”

Exactly, maybe. That’s called life.

Don’t be bitter that white men and women other than yourself are propagating the species. Learn Game. Read Mike Cernovich’s book.

Corvinus says, I am an Americuck, we have freedumb, and opportunity and diversity, and prosperity due to freedumb, diversity, and opportunity. And any amount of government force to ensure equal opportunity for diversity isn’t actually government force because freedumb isn’t free.

So when the government takes Jake and makes him live with his alcoholic mom and gives her welfare money from Jake’s dad’s taxes, that isn’t oppression, but not giving Jake’s mom the kid and half the stuff when they get divorced is. Similarly, only giving 77% as much student loans to women, or not giving Alison a masters degree for pedophile apologetics, would be oppression.

You already lost the prosperity, Americuck!

Who took the beef tallow out of the McDz fryolator because scientists told you to avoid saturated fats? You did! Who got fat because scientists told you to eat more grains and less meat? You did!

Who made the fast food burger patties a quarter inch thick and advocates for fast food niggers to be paid 15$/hr? You did! Who gave home loans to wetbacks on welfare because sociologists and economists said those wetbacks don’t have a higher default rate? You did! Who stopped profiling mudslimes on planes because psychologists and sociologists insisted anyone could be a terrorist? You did!

Women of my generation don’t even like feminism, cuckold! How does it feel to be rejected by the people you cuck for? How will it feel to be shunted off to a nursing home by children you carefully taught not to feel any sense of duty, to die at the hands of some 15$/hr nigger who doesn’t know how much you love Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior?

Your disgusting cuckold ideology will die with your generation, a death everyone cheers for in anticipation, including you!

Remember: the logical conclusion of feminism is hormone blockers for little boys so they won’t go through puberty and then look stupid in a dress. Any civilization that destroys the genitals of its own children is terminally cucked and deserves as quick a destruction as can be made. You make me sick, and you make those boys into death squads.

Anyway, I’m tired of scrolling up to the beginning of this thread. Die in a nursing home, americuck. Everyone will be happier when you die, including “your” children (feminists and americucks don’t believe that they have a special bond to their children).

PS. Guys, quit letting him pretend this is a theoretical debate. Feminism has been in full force since the snivel rights, longer than I’ve been alive, or, of course, the King of Cucks, or the ten year old boys being transgendered for equal opportunity diversity freedumb. The practical consequences of snivel rights americuckism are readily apparent, from men in this country walking into women’s locker rooms with little girls present like in the GG Allin song, to English girls getting prostituted on an industrial scale, to mass gropings in Germany.

Peppermint, he is an idiot. The more we argue with him and the more absurd positions he has to take, the worse he looks. He is defending sexual liberation in one breath, then telling me to learn game and read Heartiste in the next. He sees anything that is not leftism as fascism, including all of history until the feminists appeared. He is too frightened to defend against your mention of Jake Rapp because he knows he has nothing to fight that with.

The more foolish and ridiculous he looks, the more convincing we are. It is cucks like him, or us. Keep fighting the good fight.

“Your conclusions are predetermined by feminism, and are in defiance of what is in front of your eyes.”

Corrected for accuracy –> My conclusions are determined by my liberty to take in information and merit its validity.

Do whites not have the freedom to make their own conscious decisions about the world, or must whites completely adhere to your philosophies, through physical force if necessary

? Why do you despise humanity?

Peppermint…

“Your disgusting cuckold ideology will die with your generation, a death everyone cheers for in anticipation, including you!”

You have a morbid sense of humor. No wonder your Christian father and grandfather are extremely concerned about your well-being.

theshadowed knight…

“He is defending sexual liberation in one breath, then telling me to learn game and read Heartiste in the next.”

I’m just employ Jim’s logic here.

“He sees anything that is not leftism as fascism, including all of history until the feminists appeared.”

See, this is funny. All you white knights coming to each other’s defense over statements I never made directly nor implied.

What is fascism is insisting that tens of millions of white husbands and their wives are prohibited from exercising their liberty to choose who to marry and procreate with.

“He is too frightened to defend against your mention of Jake Rapp because he knows he has nothing to fight that with.”

Peppermint’s fetish is duly noted.

pdimov…

“Wonderful. Now, ceteris paribus, who is more susceptible to Stockholm Syndrome, men or women, in your opinion?”

[Laughs] you made the claim that there is no evidence that environmental factors affect the susceptibility to “Stockholm Syndrome”. I provide two counterexamples. Rather than directly challenge the assertion, which requires some intellectual heavy lifting on your part, you put forth a question that has a caveat, one itself that has reasonable disagreement among scientists.

Of course, if I go down your rabbit hole, I’m playing right into your trap. If I refuse, you will claim I am arguing in bad faith, as if I am uninterested in dialectic conversation. I’m on to your game.

So, YOU own up to your original assertion and defend it rather than skirting the issue.

“He fancies himself a master troll (similarly to how AJP – where did he go? – fancies himself a master rhetorician.)”

“One man was able to surround himself with women who were willing to murder on his behalf…”

Who were clinically insane. That is the difference.

“while the other risks losing his job if he hits on his cubicle neighbor.”

Or is rewarded with poon by taking that chance. One has to consider the nature of his sweet invitation and the likelihood that his inquiry will result in the desired effect. It’s called being calculated.

Peppermint…

“Denying the obvious fact that humans evolved from other animals that did things differently”

Yet another pig went to market. I never made that claim. Strawman much?

“and to understand sexual behavior in humans we should also understand sexual behavior in other species that act the way our lineage almost certainly used to in the 800 million years since the dawn of sexual reproduction.”

Except you are missing a key component here–the changing nature of the sexual landscape compliments of the environment and human progress.

Thanks for the propaganda piece by the way. Very informative as to your state of mind(less).

» Except you are missing a key component here–the changing nature of the sexual landscape compliments of the environment and human progress.

So that’s all you have left. Women and men surely have different ingrained sexual strategies, and obviously different sexual behavior where the woman gets pregnant and the man does not, but due to “the environment and human progress”, they actually behave exactly the same, as observed WHEN YOU ASK THEM UNDER THEIR REAL NAMES.

i.e. when they’re lying to save their skins from your environment and human progress.

And thanks to the environment and human progress, Jake has to read books about polyamory to his action figure and sit at home eating ice cream and posting pictures of him and Alison on Valentine’s day while she’s getting boned by other men. Oh, and he has to pierce his dick and sell his ass online. For environment and human progress.

That’s all you have left. No souls, just “environment and human progress”. But with the Boomers dying out, and the Milennials being raised with “environment and human progress”, environment is going to change, human progress is going to evaporate so quickly it will make your head spin, and your friends of other races won’t be even as reliable as you think they are (I’m guessing you’ve never seriously needed to rely on them) in a different environment without human progress.

Wikipedia entry states that Fromme was “suffering from depression” – a very common diagnosis among young women. I don’t see any compelling evidence of clinical insanity at the time she met Manson. Psychologist Bernie Zilbergeld wrote in his book “The Shrinking of America” that insanity defenses against criminal actions are mostly versions of “The Devil made him do it”. Your reasoning strikes me as very similar.

> “while the other risks losing his job if he hits on his cubicle neighbor.”

> Or is rewarded with poon by taking that chance.

Speaking as someone who works in a cubicle, the risk/reward ratio isn’t looking too good these days in corporate America.

> One has to consider the nature of his sweet invitation and the likelihood > that his inquiry will result in the desired effect. It’s called being
> calculated.

Calculation in the 1970s. “If I hit on a girl in my office, she might say no”.
Calculation in the 21st century: “If I hit on a girl in my office, I might lose my job”.

End result: Men who are smart enough to calculate don’t do much hitting on girls in the office these days.

Not just what the girl you asked might think. You also have to consider what any other number of men or women might think. An envious man or woman can make a complaint that your advances were inappropriate, and land you in the HR office.

I could ask with enough tact and grace to get a ‘yes’ or a ‘no,’ but if the fatty next to her wishes that someone would ask her and then gets upset, I am just as fucked. All she has to say is that I am making her uncomfortable with my flirting, and HR comes after me.

Ray…”Wikipedia’s entry on Squeaky Fromme states that she met Manson on the beach years before the Tate/LaBianca murders. So notoriety didn’t explain her attraction to him at the time.”

Had you been paying closer attention, Jim had referred to women upon Manson’s incarceration were hot for him. So, yes, your reference is true, but in the context of the conversation, I offered a specific reason as to why a certain subset of women would be drawn to him. Fromme on your part is a diversionary tactic.

“I don’t see any compelling evidence of clinical insanity at the time she met Manson.”

You are arguing as if I had made this claim, which I didn’t. Besides, Fromme wasn’t part of the group that murdered Tate. Moreover, the standards for clinical insanity in 1967 compared to even twenty years later is noticeable different. Case law has raised the standards for competency to stand trial, and the standard is higher for defendants seeking to represent themselves. In 2012, California’s high court ruled that even a defendant who is found competent to stand trial may be barred from self representation if mental illness prevents him or her from putting on a minimally adequate defense.

“Speaking as someone who works in a cubicle, the risk/reward ratio isn’t looking too good these days in corporate America.”

Then you or the men you work with haven’t applied Game very well. Read up on Roissy. His methods are foolproof regarding the harpooning of poon. And since we are speaking anecdotally here, my friends who worked in offices snagged all sorts of quality snatch.

“Calculation in the 1970s. “If I hit on a girl in my office, she might say no”.
Calculation in the 21st century: “If I hit on a girl in my office, I might lose my job”.

Actually, the calculation in the 1970’s and today is the same. It all depends on how you approach the situation. Learn game. Read the signs. It works.

“End result: Men who are smart enough to calculate don’t do much hitting on girls in the office these days.”

[Laughs] spoken like a true beta. Listen, intelligent men in offices are doing just fine getting tail these days through intel and work.

Fuck, I wish I was as manly and sexy as Corvinus. Then I could be a real man like Corvinus, who is the only real man here. Instead I am not like Corvinus, and I am pathetic, unlike Corvinus, who is a real man.

Corvinius said:
> Had you been paying closer attention, Jim had referred to women upon
> Manson’s incarceration were hot for him.

Yes, I read some of them. But since you specifically addressed me, my inference was you were responding to the content of my post, not his. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

>but in the context of the conversation, I offered a specific reason as to
> why a certain subset of women would be drawn to him.
> Fromme on your part is a diversionary tactic

I checked a few other members of Manson’s family, such as Susan Atkins , Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel. None of them were diagnosed as clinically insane before they met Manson or really had anything worse than troubled backgrounds. IOW, they didn’t have a long criminal history like Barbara Graham, (executed in 1955 for murder), nor were they in mental institutions previously.

> You are arguing as if I had made this claim, which I didn’t.

In your April 12, 2016 at 3:04 post, you first quoted me:

“One man was able to surround himself with women who were willing to murder on his behalf…”

then you said:
> Who were clinically insane. That is the difference.

If you’re going to make the claim that it wasn’t until they were influenced by Manson that they became insane, I hope you realize you’re simply making Jim’s point, and my point as well. Manson was able to take young, troubled, unattached women, and convince them to do heinous acts that they would otherwise not have done. Your insanity plea for them is no different than “the devil made them do it” defense that Zilbergeld (rightly) mocked. If there was a devil, it was a combination of Manson’s psychopathic influence and the inherent flaws of female nature.

> Besides, Fromme wasn’t part of the group that murdered Tate.

She attempted to gun down President Ford. If you’re going to say that her actions were less insane than those who participated in Tate’s murder it doesn’t strike me as a very compelling argument.

> Then you or the men you work with haven’t applied Game very well.
> Read up on Roissy.

I have. I understand he does most of his hitting on women in venues outside the workplace. Or is that not the case?

> His methods are foolproof regarding the harpooning of poon.

Uh, right. He has written some posts on how to deal with rejections of the nuclear kind. In a nightclub you can move on to the next girl as soon as you regain your composure. In the workplace his ‘foolproof game’ could easily lead him into an unwanted rendezvous with HR, or worse.

> Actually, the calculation in the 1970’s and today is the same.

Have at it then – it’s not my paycheck.

> [Laughs] spoken like a true beta.

I’m a beta because I don’t hit on women at work? Oh, yeah, you’re the same guy who challenged Jim to expose his identity to prove what he said. Jim pointed out that he couldn’t take the risk.

> Listen, intelligent men in offices are doing just fine getting tail these days > through intel and work.

I say bullshit. But tell you what, why don’t you make a video showing us how it’s all done and expose your identity? Since you’ve pooh-poohed minimizing risk in dealing with interactions with women, it shouldn’t be a problem for you.

“I checked a few other members of Manson’s family, such as Susan Atkins , Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel. None of them were diagnosed as clinically insane before they met Manson or really had anything worse than troubled backgrounds. IOW, they didn’t have a long criminal history like Barbara Graham, (executed in 1955 for murder), nor were they in mental institutions previously.”

That is not surprising during that era given the criteria used, which today is much more rigorous. That is, it means had modern standards been applied, there is a likelihood that their psychotic tendencies would have been at the very least detected.

“Manson was able to take young, troubled, unattached women, and convince them to do heinous acts that they would otherwise not have done.”

With those women being having a mental state other than normal.

“Your insanity plea for them is no different than “the devil made them do it” defense that Zilbergeld (rightly) mocked. If there was a devil, it was a combination of Manson’s psychopathic influence and the inherent flaws of female nature.”

Corrected for accuracy—It was Manson’s psychopathic influence and the dormant psychopathic tendencies of those specific women.

“She attempted to gun down President Ford. If you’re going to say that her actions were less insane than those who participated in Tate’s murder it doesn’t strike me as a very compelling argument.”

I guess gutting a child out of a woman’s belly compared to shooting a president isn’t very compelling.

“I have. I understand he does most of his hitting on women in venues outside the workplace. Or is that not the case?”

We’re talking about the principles employed, not who employs the principles. Game is used in all venues.

“Uh, right. He has written some posts on how to deal with rejections of the nuclear kind. In a nightclub you can move on to the next girl as soon as you regain your composure.

And how to handle those rejections he states lead into scores.

“In the workplace his ‘foolproof game’ could easily lead him into an unwanted rendezvous with HR, or worse.” Could, not would. Do you know the difference? if you are comprehend your environment and navigate through inter-office politics using game, you have the opportunity to minimize the risks and maximize the rewards in the office.

“Have at it then – it’s not my paycheck.”

You are assuming that it is likely that HR will become involved. Each situation is different.

“I’m a beta because I don’t hit on women at work? Oh, yeah, you’re the same guy who challenged Jim to expose his identity to prove what he said. Jim pointed out that he couldn’t take the risk.”

I’m just employing Jim’s logic. Talk to him. Jim is the one repeatedly claiming that he is able to dominate his wife. Do you agree with Jim’s premise that all women want to be “owned”, and that men, in order to be “men”, must :”own” them?

“I say bullshit. But tell you what, why don’t you make a video showing us how it’s all done and expose your identity? Since you’ve pooh-poohed minimizing risk in dealing with interactions with women, it shouldn’t be a problem for you.”

I’ve been stating that the risk is not as great as you believe it to be, not that there are a lack of risks. It’s called nuance. Listen, why don’t YOU make a video showing how and why it’s an HR nightmare for men in an office setting to hit on their colleagues. I mean, you are an expert on the subject, right?

You think we’re hyperventilating? The poly lifestyle was good to me before I left and got a serious gf. I’m just here for fun.

Jake is physically healthy except for his pierced dick. I want you to think about all the ten year old boys on hormone blockers waiting to get their dicks cut off because their swipple moms are so brainwashed, terrified of committing thoughtcrime, and eager to signal.

At some point Jake and other victims of feminism and the boys being transgendered by their school and parents will take control of their lives and they will be führious.

> That is, it means had modern standards been applied, there is a
> likelihood that their psychotic tendencies would have been at the very least detected.

No significant criminal record, no history of stays at mental hospitals, nothing but your after the fact rationalization that they were driven to murder because they were “nuts” (talk about circular reasoning).
For someone who is so quick to demand evidence from Jim, you sure don’t bring much to the table.

> With those women being having a mental state other than normal.

See above.

> Corrected for accuracy—It was Manson’s psychopathic influence and
> the dormant psychopathic tendencies of those specific women.

You see them as atomistic aberrations; I see them as exhibiting female nature writ large. Here are some other examples: Stockholm Syndrome, war brides, women who write love letters to the likes of Joran Van Der Sloot, and women who poison husbands who they’ve tired of.

Maybe because I’ve seen it happen. Scholars like F. Roger Devlin have also written about the pernicious effects of sexual harassment policies in the workplace. I’ll take the analysis of someone like him over you.

> Each situation is different.

Meaningless platitude.

> I’ve been stating that the risk is not as great as you believe it to be,

The risk / reward ratio would by definition be many times greater than in
a memoryless venue such as a nightclub. If you can’t understand why, then you’re beyond stupid.

> not that there are a lack of risks.
> It’s called nuance.

Here are your own words from your earlier post:
“[Laughs] spoken like a true beta”.

Looks like you left the nuance at the starting gate.

> I’m just employing Jim’s logic.

Nope, Jim is being logically and philosophically consistent. And the
examples to buttress his viewpoints (like Jian Ghomeshi) are available
to anyone with an Internet connection. So there’s no need for him to
make a video of himself and his wife.

> Talk to him.

I already know and understand his positions on M/F nature.

> Jim is the one repeatedly claiming that he is able to dominate his wife.

Seems reasonable to me. Why is it so hard for you to believe?

> Do you agree with Jim’s premise that all women want to be “owned”,

Pretty much. It’s become clear to me that without checks and balances, female nature will erode and eventually lead to the downfall of advanced societies.

> and that men, in order to be “men”, must :”own” them?

I’m perfectly respectful of men who were celibate, such as Isaac Newton and Tesla. My belief is that women’s sexual decision making at the societal level is not good without the control and guidance of men.

> Listen, why don’t YOU make a video showing how and why it’s an HR
> nightmare for men in an office setting to hit on their colleagues.

Sorry, but I don’t make videos belaboring the obvious. You were the one who raised the issue about videos, so again, why don’t you make your own?

“It doesn’t really do much for your “if it had been today they would have locked them up before they did anything wrong” viewpoint.”

The source mentions those individuals who already had mental illness and were being warehoused by public institutions. By the 1970’s, there was a concerted effort by states to release the mentally ill and have individual communities treat them and foot the bill in the process.

I was referring to current law regarding those individuals who were not diagnosed with mental illness and who would be considered under statute as being a danger to themselves or others.

Two completely different things. Nice try.

“No significant criminal record, no history of stays at mental hospitals, nothing but your after the fact rationalization that they were driven to murder because they were “nuts” (talk about circular reasoning).”

Just because a person lacks those characteristics prior to committing heinous acts does not mean they do not have a discernible mental condition. The short-term and long-term effects of neurological instability can be difficult to predict, because so many of them are defined in terms of ability to function in society, and one patient may have a radically different set of circumstances from another. Moreover, something in the environment may serve as a trigger to send he/she into psychosis or a psychotic episode. Those ladies were definitively mentally deficient; a rational person would have refused to carry out Manson’s diabolical plots. At worst, they had psychopathic tendencies that manifested itself into deviant conduct. The women found Mason’s deranged philosophies and attitudes appealing because they were prone to commit heinous acts.

“You see them as atomistic aberrations; I see them as exhibiting female nature writ large. Here are some other examples: Stockholm Syndrome, war brides, women who write love letters to the likes of Joran Van Der Sloot, and women who poison husbands who they’ve tired of.”

The situations you listed are not merely a “woman’s imperative”; rather, a myriad of factors involved, both biological and environmental. Studies of Stockholm Syndrome, for example, has been associated with MEN AND WOMEN bonding with their captors in abusive situations, such as child abuse, POW’s, cult members, or concentration camp prisoners. Its symptoms include positive feelings toward the controller, negative feelings toward the rescuers, supportive behavior by the victim helping the abuser, and a lack of desire by the victim to be rescued.

“As to the last example, here’s an article explaining the origins of the Indian custom of suttee.”

There is more to the story than what your source stated. There is debate as to whether women were actually poisoning their husband in the first place. The two references were from the 1800’s I would imagine that there has been more current research on the matter that may refute this husbanded angle. Besides, sati is where a widow committed suicide by jumping into the funeral pyre of her husband or killed herself shortly thereafter.

Of course you are going to come to his defense, white knight. You’re not going to lose your privileges, cuck.

“So there’s no need for him to make a video of himself and his wife.”

Actually, there is a necessity. Only visual evidence of his wife admitting that she is “owned” would lend credence to his position.

“Seems reasonable to me. Why is it so hard for you to believe?”

Seems reasonable to me that you’re a toadie. Anyone anonymously can make those claims. Hard evidence is required to substantiate it.

“It’s become clear to me that without checks and balances, female nature will erode and eventually lead to the downfall of advanced societies.”

A great majority of men and women support other than your position. They have the liberty to make those decisions.

“My belief is that women’s sexual decision making at the societal level is not good without the control and guidance of men.”

Yes, your opinion. Best wishes on your efforts to save Western Civilization from its inevitable downfall.

Problem #1–It’s 2016, not 1716.

Problem #2—Most men and women find it more desirable to make their own decisions regarding how they define the relationship. You and Jim personally might find it appalling, and you can demand that they engage in alternative behaviors, but ultimately you have no control over it.

Problem #3—The only way to ensure this “control and guidance of women by men” requires a full court press on your part and your allies to wrest away that liberty. Shaming won’t work. It requires violence and oppression. Are you up for it, or are you going to lament on a blog?

What about yourself? I would imagine that you have “own” your wife and have already sired four white kids by now. If not, get moving.

“Sorry, but I don’t make videos belaboring the obvious. You were the one who raised the issue about videos, so again, why don’t you make your own?”

Right, because the only way Jim is going to prove that he “owns” his wife is through direct visual evidence.

It’s the current year! But progress is unsustainable, because boomers are dying and milennials aren’t as capable or interested in working, and the number of women and minorities affirmative actioned into workplaces only increases.

» Problem #2—Most men and women find it more desirable to make their own decisions regarding how they define the relationship.

Funny how their own decisions usually end up with either the man “oppressing” the woman, or with them breaking up soon. Oh, but you’ll just deny that and substitute your own facts, which are based on the very scientific procedure of asking people politically sensitive questions and recording their answers.

» Problem #3—The only way to ensure this “control and guidance of women by men” requires a full court press on your part and your allies to wrest away that liberty. Shaming won’t work. It requires violence and oppression. Are you up for it, or are you going to lament on a blog?

Baldly repeating that assertion proves you don’t have any evidence but need to believe it. Feminism is a conspiracy theory that literally every White man ever with the exception of recent generations has been in on a conspiracy to oppress his mother, sisters, wife, and daughters. Including Aristophanes, who wrote the satirical play Lysistrata. You have no evidence that this conspiracy existed, let alone required violence to maintain. Violence in the form of the government taking money and children away from men, the government forcing companies to hire women or get sued, the government forcing companies to fire men with bad attitudes or get sued, etc, is observably required to maintain the illusion of male-female equality.

Remember: feminism is the reason Jake Rapp has a punctured penis and thousands of ten year old boys are on hormone blockers. You don’t want to be remembered as a feminist when those ten year olds are twenty.

That’s cool. You have a family, an institution, and an Opus Dei club. If I had a family, and it was 20 years ago, I would try to take them to church, too.

I think your institution is worthless, but hey, there are lots of worse websites, and I think your Opus Dei club is also worthless, but I’ll never know who assassinated Antonin Scalia and I don’t want to.

What you are referring to is the regressive nature of femininity, putting the value of a child-man higher than that of a patriarch, or otherwise catering to Oedipal aspirations of said child-man. However, we do know that secretly (or not so secretly) she aspires to be ruled over by that patriarch if such aspirations assume that she’s got something to offer him.

However, in a demographic imbalance, that is too many widows and spinsters and no polygamy or prostitution, then only regressive femininity applies to that population (or aspiring population such as those who are not chosen as the onewife by a discerning population of wannabe patriarchs).

If it was the catering to women’s hunger for power which resulted in Oedipal politicians and clergy instituting monogamy as a mandate then this was also a regressive impulse.

Surely, there are non-regressive feminine impulses suppressed for so long by monogamy that we no longer recognize them as “the feminine imperative”. Surely, monogamy itself as a regressive institution was also a natural response to overpopulation relative to resources, or as merely a way of forestalling rebellion by unselected males.

In my view, limiting female migration and attention to nutritional health would allow for more easily charted menstrual/fertility cycles such as to avoid these imbalances, and necessary regressive corrections–necessary, even if the nature of the particular correction is ill-advised.

“However, we do know that secretly (or not so secretly) she aspires to be ruled over by that patriarch if such aspirations assume that she’s got something to offer him.” No, we do not know certain what you claim. At best, you can make an educated guess, which is not the same as being exactly sure.

“In my view, limiting female migration and attention to nutritional health would allow for more easily charted menstrual/fertility cycles such as to avoid these imbalances, and necessary regressive corrections–necessary, even if the nature of the particular correction is ill-advised.”

Who puts forth these limits? By what means? How do you address those men and women who would object to those limits? What evidence even suggests that your plan would accomplish this goal?

It just boggles my mind that some people have these pie-in-the-sky ideas and thoroughly believe they would work willy-nilly style without considering potential hazards or the inherent human condition to rebel against these notions.

He used to talk to his youth pastor about marriage. His youth pastor probably told him the same things Corvinus would.

He met a pretty, Jewish girl and married her, giving her a special titanium ring, and taking her last name.

We don’t know if Allison Rapp got her job selling toys to kids through connections developed while whoring. But she probably got him his job selling lattes to toy company executives. How did it feel for him to look them in the eye and sell coffee to men who cucked him?

She didn’t bother to take off his titanium ring in her whoring profile pictures.

She made him read books about polyamory. He read them to his action figure.

She made him go on dates with men, and met those men afterwards.

She made him get his dick pierced. Since she’s a Jew, it’s not out of the question that she made him get it snipped as a condition to marry her.

He took the pictures in his selling his ass profile wearing the same flannel shirt he got married in.

Other than selling coffee to men his wife slept with and selling his own ass, his third career is life coaching for polyamorists.

He has a girlfriend on the side. She looks like a shorter, uglier copy of his wife. She wants out and is on OKC as single, monogamous, straight, and available, but she’s probably going to have to make a new OKC and Facebook now. She has a real job, too.

She might give him an offer, that he can come away with her, or never talk to her again. This opportunity comes once in a lifetime do not miss your chance to not cuck

“So, YOU own up to your original assertion and defend it rather than skirting the issue.”

My assertion is that (1) women are much more susceptible to Stockholm Syndrome than men and (2) the reason for this disparity is innate and not environmental.

Hence my question to you. Are women more susceptible to Stockholm Syndrome, in your opinion?

You’ll note that this is part (1) of my assertion. It serves to identify the basis of disagreement. This is not rocket science.

As for your citations, they contradict neither (1) nor (2), which is why I said that there is nothing to refute. The fact that the reasons for a phenomenon are varied and complex does not preclude or explain away innate differences in susceptibility to it.

You’re conflating two different meanings of “environment” here. The environment that triggers the Stockholm Syndrome (being held captive or hostage) which obviously plays a role in triggering the syndrome by definition, and the hypothetical environment that would explain the difference in susceptibility.

[…] is the nature of women to go along with this. Most don’t even realize that society is structured to be completely in their benefit, they are ignorant of it (as well as most things). Many men expect woman to be able to comprehend […]